(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Water resources research act of 1964--an assessment"

v/.i"*/ 






/* 7 



1/ 



94th Congress V 
2d Session / 



COMMITTEE PRINT 



THE WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH 
ACT OF 1964: 

AN ASSESSMENT 



PREPARED BY THE 

ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

POLICY DIVISION 

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

AT THE REQUEST OF 

Frank Church, Chairman 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY RESEARCH 
AND WATER RESOURCES 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND 

INSULAR AFFAIRS „/>'""»,.. 




fSf>' 



i 

i * 



< \ 



«cik 



#?$• 



MARCH 1976 






■I 

7 



W//////^ 



Printed for the use of the 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
WASHINGTON : 1976 



COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS 
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, Chairman 



FRANK CHURCH, Idaho 

LEE METCALF, Montana 

J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana 

JAMES ABOUREZK. South Dakota 

FLOYD K. HASKELL, Colorado 

JOHN GLENN. Ohio 

RICHARD STONE, Florida 

DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas 



PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona 
CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming 
MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon 
JAMES A. McCLURE. Idaho 
DEWEY F. BARTLETT, Oklahoma 



Grenville Garside, Special Counsel and staff Director 

Daniel A. Dreyfus, Deputy Staff Director for Legislation 

William J. Van Ness, Chief Counsel 

I). Michael Harvey, Deputy Chief Counsel 

Owen J. Malone, Senior Counsel 

W. O. (Fred) Craft, Jr., Minority Counsel 



Subcommittee on Energy Research and Water Resources 
FRANK CHURCH, Idaho, Chairman 



HENRY M. JACKSON. Washington 
J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana 
JAMES ABpUREZK, South Dakota 
ri.nVI) K. HASKELL. Colorado 
JOHN GLENN, Ohio 
!:I«FI.\l:i» STONE. Florida 
DA LI': BUMPERS, Arkan.v,^ 



MARK 0. HATFIELD. Orrpon 
CLIFFORD P. HANSEN. Wyomin; 
PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona 



Ben Yamagata, Counsel 
RrssEi.i. R. Brown. Professional Staff Member 



(II) 



MEMORANDUM OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN 

To Members of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs: 

Congress enacted the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 in 
recognition of the Nation's need to provide greater emphasis on basic 
and applied research and demonstration in water resources. After 
nearly a decade of experience with the Water Resources Research Act, 
it is timely that the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs examine 
the successes and failures of the Act. 

A most important feature of the Research Act has been the success- 
ful establishment of water resources research institutes. The creation 
of the institutes has established a national network of centers for water 
resources research and the institutes have become centers of excellence 
in water planning methodology, modeling, and other water based 
problems. In addition, the title II grant program has greatly expanded 
the scope of participation in water related research. 

In 1974, by order of the Secretary of the Interior, the Office of Water 
Resources Research and the Office of Saline Water were merged into a 
new Office of Water Research and Technology. This new office assumed 
the functions previously vested in both the Office of Saline Water and 
Water Research. This reorganization of functions will have an impact 
upon the management and objectives of the Water Resources Research 
Act, and, as a result, any assessment of the Research Act must be con- 
sidered in light of this reorganization. 

To aid members in the Subcommittee's deliberations of the role of 
research in water resources, I have asked Warren Viessman, Jr.. and 
Christopher Caudill of the Environmental Policy Division, Congres- 
sional Research Service, to prepare an historical analysis of the Water 
Resources Research Act and an assessment of possible revisions to 
the Act. 

The Subcommittee wishes to express its appreciation to the authors. 
I have ordered it to be printed to make it available to the Members of 
Congress and others interested in water resources research policy. 

Frank Church. Chairman, 
Subcommittee on Energy Research 

and Water Resources. 
(in) 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/wateresreOOIibr 



CONTENTS 



Page 

Memorandum of the subcommittee chairman m 

I. Summary 1 

A. History 1 

1. Legislation 1 

2. Public Law 88-379 program 3 

B. Accomplishments of the Public Law 88-379 program 3 

1. Creating a national network of centers for water re- 

sources research 4 

2. Instilling objectivity into water-related research 4 

3. Research 5 

4. Information dissemination and technology transfer 5 

5. Manpower and training 5 

6. Coordination 6 

7. Public service 6 

C. Program deficiencies 6 

1. Funding 6 

2. Program planning and development : 

(a) Federal 

(b) State 

3. Research 8 

4. Information dissemination and technology transfer : 

(a) The Water Resources Scientific Information 

Program : 8 

(b) Institute programs 8 

5. Coordination, consultation, and collaboration 8 

6. Manpower and training 

D. Relationship of OWRT to the Water Resources Council 9 

E. Relationship of OWRT to other existing or proposed 

institutions 9 

1. Department of Energy and Natural Resources 9 

2. River study centers 10 

3. Environmental research centers 10 

F. Options for change 10 

1. Position in the water resources hierarchy 11 

2. OWRT role in development 11 

3. Future of saline water R. & D 11 

4. Coordination 11 

G. Conclusions 12 

II. Introduction 33 

III. Legislative history 15 

A. Recommendations of Senate Select Committee on National 

Water Resources 15 

B. The Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (P.L. 8S-379)-— 16 

1. Senate hearings on S. 2 23 

2. Senate report on S. 2 26 

3. Senate debate on S. 2 27 

4. House committee hearings 31 

5. House committee report on S. 2 32 

6. House debate on S. 2 33 

7. Conference report on S. 2 37 

C. Subsequent legislative action 38 

1. Public Law 89-404 38 

2. Public Law 92-175 42 

3. S. 1301 48 

(V) 



VI 

IV. An assessment of 10 years of performance of the Office of Water Re- rage 

sources Rest-arch — 1965-75 51 

A. Organization and administration ~ '-,1 

1. Office of Water Resources Research ,-»! 

2. Water Resources Research Advisory Panel 53 

B. A hrief history ' 53 

C. Budget 1 ~~~~ 54 

1. Office of Water Resources Research 54 

2. Non-Federal contributions 57 

3. Budget planning by State institutes 58 

4. Federal expenditures and forecasts for research ."is 

D. Research program 03 

1. Annual allotment program 63 

2. Matching grant program 66 

3. Title II research 71 

4. Regional research 80 

5. Coordination, consultation and collaboration 84 

a. What the States are doing s ' 

b. Federal, State and regional coordination 90 

c. Problems of coordination 92 

G. Applied versus basic research 93 

E. Information dissemination 93 

1. Water Resources Scientific Information Center 03 

2. Programs in technology transfer 95 

F. Manpower and training '•>'•> 

G. Accomplishments of the Public Paw 88-379 program 102 

1. Creating a national network of centers for water re- 

sources research 103 

2. Instilling objectivity into water resources research lid 

3. Research 104 

4. Avoidance of duplication in research efforts 105 

r>. Information dissemination and technology transfer 1<»"» 

6. Manpower and training 106 

7. Coordination 106 

8. Public service 107 

H. Program deficiencies 107 

1. Funding 108 

2. Program planning and development 108 

a. Federal 108 

b. State 109 

3. Research 109 

1. information dissemination and technology transfer 111) 

a. The water resources scientific information pro- 

gram 110 

b. Institute programs no 

5. Coordination, consultation and collaboration 111 

6. Manpower and training HI 

V. Reorganization into an Office of Wnter Research and Technology 113 

A. Organization and staffing 113 

1. Functions Fi4 

2. Organization 111 

3. Advisory boards and panels 115 

B. Programs and directions 117 

1. Program objective 117 

2. Fiscal year L976 program summary 117 

:;. Program management 1 1 T 

4. Development of long-range goals and objectives lis 

VI. Alternatives for increased effectiveness and improved coordination . 119 

a Recommendations of the National Water Commission L19 

p. Relationship with the Water Resources Council ami the river 

basin commissions L21 

C. Relationship with other existing or proposed institutions L22 

1. Department of Energy and Natural Resources 122 

2. Office of Science and Technology Policy L22 

'.',. River study centers IL'.''. 

1. environmental research centers. 128 

5. Energy Research and Development Administration 

(EBDA) L24 



VII 

Face 

D. Options for change 124 

1. Position of OWRT in the water resources hierarchy 125 

2. OWRT role in development 125 

3. The future of saline water R. & D 125 

4. Relationship of OWRT to State institutes 126 

5. New directions for research 126 

6. Coordination 126 

APPENDIXES 

Appendix A — Public Law 88-379 as amended by Public Law 89-404 and 

Public Law 92-175 129 

Appendix B— Text of S. 1301 137 



THE WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT OF 1964: AN 

ASSESSMENT 



Prepared by 

Warren Viessmax, Jr. 

Senior Specialist in Engineering and Public Works 

and 

Christopher K. CaudelIj 

Research Assistant 

Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division 

Congressional Research Service 

Library of Congress 



THE WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT OF 1964: AN ASSESSMENT 

I. Summary 

a. HISTORY 

1. Legislation 

In 1961 the Senate Select Committee on National Water Resources 
recommended: (1) greater emphasis on basic research ; (2) increased 
investments in applied research and demonstration; and (3) more 
effective overall coordination of water research programs. As a result 
of these recommendations, President Kennedy called for a complete 
review of natural resources research programs and included in his 
budget for fiscal year 1963, provision for an Institute of Water Re- 
search as a part of the Geological Survey. 

On July 27, 1962, Senator Anderson introduced S. 3579 to establish 
water research institutes at land-grant institutions and to promote a 
more adequate national water research program. Action was not taken 
before the 87th Congress expired and Senator Anderson reintroduced 
the proposal as S. 2 of the 88th Congress on January 14, 1963. In addi- 
tion to establishing State institutes, the bill authorized the cataloging 
of water research work. A compromise on the legislation was reached 
by the Senate and House and the bill was signed by President John- 
son on July 17, 1964 to become Public Law 88-379. The principal 
provisions of the Act are summarized below : 

Sec. 100. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the 
Interior for the fiscal year 1965 and each subsequent year thereafter sums ade- 
quate to provide $75,000 in each of the several States in the first year, $87,500 
in each of the second and third years, and $100,000 each year thereafter to assist 
each participating State in establishing and carrying on the work of a competent 
and qualified water resources research institute, center, or equivalent agency 
(hereinafter referred to as "institute") at one college or university in that State, 
which college or university shall be a college or university established in accord- 
ance with the Act approved July 2, 1862 (12 Stat. 503), entitled "An Act donating 
public lands to the several States and territories which may provide colleges for 
the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts" or some other institution desig- 
nated by Act of the legislature of the State concerned : * * * 

Sec. 101. (a) There is further authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
of the Interior for the fiscal year 1965 and each subsequent year thereafter sums 
not in excess of the following : 1965, $1,000,000 ; 1966, $2,000,000 ; 1967, $3,000,000 ; 
1968, $4,000,000; and 1969 and each of the succeeding years, $5,000,000. Such 
moneys when appropriated, shall be available to match, on a dollar-for-dollar 
basis, funds made available to institutes by States or other non-Federal sources 
to meet the necessary expenses of specific water resources research projects 
which could not otherwise be undertaken, including the expenses of planning and 
coordinating regional water resources research projects by two or more institutes. 

Sec. 200. There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior 
$1,000,000 in fiscal year 1965 and $1,000,000 in each of the nine fiscal years there- 
after from which he may make grants, contracts, matching, or other arrange- 
ments with educational institutions (other than those establishing institutes 
under title I of this Act), private foundations or other institutions; with private 
firms and individuals ; and with local, State and Federal Government agencies, 
to undertake research into any aspects of water problems related to the mission 
of the Department of the Interior, which may be deemed desirable and are not 
otherwise being studied. * * * 

(1) 



In the 89th Congress. Senator Anderson introduced S. 22 to restore 
title II of the Water Resources Research Act as originally passed 
by the Senate. In the final version of the bill, title II appropriations 
were changed to $5 million for fiscal year 1967, increasing $1 million 
per fiscal year to $10 million and continued at that level from 1972- 
1976 inclusive- The restriction prohibiting participation by the insti- 
tutes was also removed. The bill was signed into law on April 19, 
1966 to become Public Law 89-404. 

On February is. 1969, Senator Bible introduced S. 1051 to make 
Washington, D.C. eligible for participation in title I of the act. On 
March 5, 1970, Senator Moss introduced S. 3553 which raised the 
annual appropriation level for water research institutes from $100,000 
to £250.000. It also provided for information dissemination activities 
at the research centers. After some modification, a bill was referred 
to the House Interior Committee, but no further action was taken. 

In the 92d Congress. Senator Hansen introduced S. 121. Senator 
Moss introduced S. 219 and four bills, H.R. 1400, H.R. 3835, H.R. 
6403. and H.R. 7293. wore introduced in the House. Hearings were 
held by the House Interior Committee on June 29, 1971. H.R. 1400 
was subsequently marked up and reintroduced as H.R. 10203. It was 
reported by the committee as House Report 463 on August 5, 1971. 
The new bill authorized $250,000 for the institutes annually and au- 
thorized institutes in the Virgin Islands, Guam and the District of 
Columbia. Section 2 included provisions for information dissemina- 
tion and section 3 required that the water research plans of the insti- 
tutes be made in consultation and collaboration with water resources 
officials and experts. 

Senator Hansen, using the format of H.R. 10203, introduced S. 
2428. The bill differed from H.R. 10203 principally in that it author- 
ized the inclusion of American Samoa. Hearings were held on S. 121, 
S. 219. and S. 242S on October 13, 1971. The Senate Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs reported the legislation as Senate Report 
438 on November 10, 1971. The committee received H.R. 10203 during 
its consideration of the Senate bills and recommended it for passage. 
The House bill passed the Senate on November 22, 1971 and was 
signed into law as Public Law 92-175 on December 2, 1971. 

Current legislation (1975) to amend the Water Resources Research 
Act of L964, as amended, is S. 1301 introduced by request on March 21 
(legislative day. March 12), 1975. The bill expands the Secretary of 
Interior's responsibilities to include technology development as well 
as water research. Cooperating with the Administrator of EPA, 
the Secretary would conduct a water resources technology develop- 
ment program to assure the fullest possible contribution to improye- 
■ of water resources processes and techniques. Due consideration 
would l>c given to priority problems identified by water and land 
irces oi 'ganizations and agencies. Roth the Administrator and 
the Secretary would be responsible for the prevention of duplica- 
tion of effort. The bill expands title II to allow the Secretary to de- 
velop and Implement technology transfer methodologies for the prac- 
tical application of research and development results and conclusions. 
The Secretary is given the responsibility :<> make information gained 
from water resources research generally available. 



2. Public Law 88-379 Program 

In fiscal year 1965, the Public Law 88-379 program was initiated 
when each State and Puerto Rico established a water resources re- 
search institute. The Office of Water Resources Research (OWRR) 
began operations in research planning and cordination and informa- 
tion dissemination. The importance of considering the total environ- 
ment including physical, biological, human and other aspects as they 
relate to water resources was recognized. 

During fiscal years 1972 and 1973, the requirement that the States 
develop their programs in association with leading water officials took 
hold and a new era of cooperation and coordination was born. Regional 
research groups were formed and systems for identification, prioritiza- 
tion and analysis of research were set in motion. Technology transfer 
programs were established and made operational and a greater involve- 
ment of research users in the research planning processes of the in- 
stitutes was noted. 

By order of Secretary of Interior Morton, the Office of Water Re- 
sources Research and the Office of Saline Water (OSW) were merged 
into a new Office of Water Research and Technology (OWRT) effec- 
tive November 30, 1974. The Office of Water Research and Technology 
imder the supervision of the Assistant Secretary, Land and Water 
Resources (USDI), performs water research and development activi- 
ties (through contracts and grants) and related functions vested in the 
Secretary of the Interior under the Water Resources Research Act of 
1964 (Public Law 88-379, as amended), under the Saline Water Con- 
version Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-60, as amended), and under the 
Joint Resolution (Public Law 85-883, as amended). 

The objective of the OWRT program is to develop new understand- 
ing and knowledge needed to solve or mitigate high priority water 
resources problems existing in the several States and hydrographical 
regions of the Nation, and to continue the development of desalination 
processes. To achieve this objective, a combination of complementary 
and coordinated research, development, scientific information dis- 
semination, and technology transfer activities are programed utiliz- 
ing the outstanding scientific and technical competence available in ed- 
ucational institutions, private firms, foundations, and other 
organizations. 

B. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE PUBLIC LAW 88-3 7 9 PROGRAM 

Through fiscal year 1974, about $108 million have been appropriated 
to support the Public Law 88-379 program. During this same period, 
non-Federal contributions have amounted to over $73 million. It is 
significant that in the title I program, the States have contributed 
about $70 million or approximately $45 million more than required by 
the act. 

Achievements of the program extend well beyond the confines of 
research, training and information transfer mandated in Public Law 
88-379. Research productivity has been high. Between one-fourth and 
one-third of all technical literature in water resources has resulted from 
this program although it receives less than 10 percent of total Federal 
outlays for water resources research. A focus on the Nation's critical 
water problems has emerged and pioneering efforts in research on im- 
provement of water planning methodology, mathematical modeling 
of water systems, land disposal of water-borne organic wastes, urban 



hydrology and water problem?, and water based recreation have been 
noted. Regional research has been stimulated and multi-disciplinary 
research methodologies developed and put into practice. 

A significant increase in scientific attention to water problems has 
been a byproduct and a substantially increased resource base of quali- 
fied manpower has emerged. Coordination of Federal research has im- 
proved and the dissemination and transfer of technical information 
is being given more attention although funding limits achievement. 

1. Creating a National Xetwork of Centers for Water Resources 

Research 

Perhaps the most significant accomplishment of the Public Law 
88-379 program has been the establishment of a competent network of 
water resources research institutes. These centers of expertise have 
galvanized the water research programs of the University community 
into a national problem-solving effort. A focus on national, regional 
and State problems has emerged. Critical water problems are identi- 
fied, research priorities established and research is implemented to 
solve these problems. Greater direction and coordination of water 
research at all levels has developed. This provides for increased cost 
effectiveness and heightened efficiency. The institutes have acted as 
sources of information for States and have become active in dissemi- 
nating information and the transfer of technology. Through formal 
and other linkages with State and Federal agencies and other groups 
and organizations, the institutes have achieved credibility and many 
of them are now identified as the State focus for water research plan- 
ning and coordination. State and Federal agencies, the public, students 
and faculty use the institutes as information centers on a wide variety 
of water resources problems. The allotment program has brought a 
stability to university research and acts as a catalyst for a coordinated 
and effective national program of research, training and information 
dissemination in the water resources field. 

2. Instilling Objectivity Into Water-Related Research 

The State institutes provide an objective, interdisciplinary overview 
of water problems in their social, political, economic, and legal setting. 
This is a valuable asset since governmental agencies, profit-oriented 
private industries, and citizens' environmental organizations may have 
very different perceptions of the same problem. 

The university provides an atmosphere of free inquiry insulated 
from most special interest groups and self-serving biases that some- 
times appear in the intramural research of action agencies. The Public 
Law v ^ 379 research program preserves scientific integrity, guarantees 
objective comparisons, permits thoughtful challenges to accepted 
norm-, and fosters innovation in problem solving. The program per- 
mits initiation of introspective research which is not appropriate for 
mission agencies to undertake. 

The fad that the Public T,aw 8S-379 program serves all the water 

irees disciplines and not the mission of one agency exclusively 

provides greater credibility and freedom of choice in pursuing needed 

arch relative to planning, management, and various institutional 
aspects of perplexing water resources problems. A fresh approach has 

taken to many problems which have long been neglected or given 
-hurt shrift or unimaginative treatment due to agency biases or 
traditions. 



S. Research 

Emphasis has been on problems related to water resources planning, 
effectiveness of institutional arrangements, ecological and social im- 
pacts of water resources development, urban and metropolitan water 
problems, water resources management and hydrologic systems. Even 
the allotment program, often considered locally oriented and without 
adequate Federal guidance, exhibits characteristics of research direc- 
tion very similar to those of title II and the section 101 grants. During 
its first 10 years, the overall thrust of the Public Law 88-379 program 
has been on the important issues, and the collection of fragmented and 
uncoordinated activities expected by antagonists has not materialized. 

The institutes have developed programs to assist State agencies and 
are looked upon as the official research arm in several States. Many 
institutes administer projects supported by NSF, EPA, Corps of 
Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and various State and other agen- 
cies. Coordination which results from this is a positive contribution 
of the program. ^^ 

Encouraged by OWRT, the water research institutes have given 
special attention to regional assessments of water problems, and to 
developing cooperative regional approaches to problem-solving 
through research. Cooperation between the institutes, river basin com- 
missions, interagency basin committees, and other regional groups has 
developed, and a more explicit coordination of research by the par- 
ticipating institute directors has resulted. 

4. Information Dissemination and Technology Transfer 

The broad concern of OWKT with water resources issues has led to 
the development of the Water Resources Scientific Information 
Center (WRSIC). This effective information service receives input 
from 13 centers of competence representing a spectrum of water re- 
sources areas. In addition, several Government agencies provide input. 
Over 83,000 entries are contained in the information retrieval system. 

The State institutes are actively engaged in a variety of programs 
to bridge the gap between research users and producers. Many students 
formerly associated with the Public Law 88-379 program have been 
employed by public and private organizations with planning, design, 
development, and regulatory responsibilities, and act as change agents. 
The authoritative and objective output of researchers is being tem- 
pered to make research results more comprehensible and easier to im- 
plement. Close working relationships between institute personnel 
and local. State, and Federal action agencies and consulting firms and 
other practitioners, helps to assure more effective dissemination and 
implementation of results. 

5. Manpower and Training 

The number of water resources scientists trained through the Public 
Law 88-379 program has been impressive. From 1965 to 1974, an 
average of about 1,700 students has been supported by OWRT each 
year. Training of water scientists has been accomplished through as- 
sociation with active research projects, participation in research semi- 
nars, special short courses, and other programs. Many graduate stu- 
dents and other professionals would not have entered water-related 
work if it had not been for the Public Law 88-379 program. The train- 



ing of water resources scientists and engineers to meet the manpower 
needs of Government and private industry has been achieved as a 
nearly cost-free byproduct of the OTVUT program. 

G. Coord illation 

"While improved Federal agency research coordination (particularly 
within Interior) has resulted from the Public Law 88-379 program, 
the coordination of research conducted by most of the Nation's 
leading universities has been the greatest payoff. The fact that OWRT 
must approve all projects (allotment, matching, or other) and the fact 
that it publishes periodic abstracts of current water research and pro- 
vides this to the institutes, makes duplicative programs between States 
remote. The OWRT involvement in the Federal Interagency Com- 
mittee on Water Resources Research (COWRR) and its utilization of 
outside agency reviews of research proposals, further serves to avoid 
duplication. Public Law 88-379 has instilled more coherency in na- 
tional water research and has given critical mass to fragmented water 
research programs making them more efficient and cost-effective. 

In many States which are partners in river basin commissions or 
interagency basin committees, the water resources institutes have de- 
veloped a focus for coordination through these entities. Coordination 
of research at the regional level has been enhanced in this process and 
more efficient use of research funds has resulted. 

7. Public Service 

The public service role of the State institutes has expanded signifi- 
cantly during the 10 years of operation of the Public Law 88-379 pro- 
gram. Many services including the operation of information centers, 
consultation, participation on citizens committees and advisory boards, 
news releases, TV programs, short courses, and others have been pro- 
vided. The varied activities of the State institutes have helped raise 
public consciousness concerning water resources problems and issues. 
This increased awareness has returned the favor in terms of a greater 
level of public support for both State and Federal programs related 
to water resources research and information transfer. 

C. PROGRAM DEFICIENCIES 

Although the accomplishments of the Public Law 88-379 program 
arc impressive, there is room for improvement, and in several areas, 
addi tional effort is indicated. 

/. Funding 

During the history of Public Law 88-379, appropriations have 
significantly Lagged authorized levels except for section LOO prior to 
the increased authorizations provided for by Public L:iw 92 175 in 
1971. The 1971 amendments reflected a decision by the Congress to 
provide increased support for water research and to expand the over- 
all program principally in the areas of information dissemination 
and technology transfer and coordination. The inundate is there, but 
funding has not materialized. There has been ;i decrease 1 in research 
productvity (due to inflation) and a tight constraint on the develop- 
ment of new and expanded programs. If it had not been for the sup- 
port provided the institutes by the Strifes and universities and the 
ingenuity of the institute directors, the results would have been 
disastrous. How long the program can maintain its momentum and 



enthusiasm without more substantial Federal funding is a subject 
of conjecture, but the effects will surely be seen within 2 or 3 years 
at most. For the relatively small Federal investment in this program 
it has attained a stature and potential for warding off future crises 
in the water resources field that should be recognized and strength- 
ened. With appropriations for research being sharply decreased on the 
basis of 1965 dollars, national research and manpower training re- 
quirements are not being met. 

2. Program Planning and Development 

(a) Federal. — Since the beginning of operation of OWRT, goals 
have been established to assure compliance with the law and to provide 
a direction for the program. Priority areas of research identified by the 
Department of the Interior and the Federal Interagency Committee on 
Water Resources Research (GOWRR) have been used to set the pat- 
tern for title II research and to a lesser degree title I research. Other 
objectives such as information dissemination and training have been 
met by establishment of WRSIC and encouragement of institute direc- 
tors to develop technology transfer programs and associate students 
with research projects. 

The OWRT director and his staff have made considerable progress 
in moving toward their objectives, but the development by OWRT of 
a clear national strategy for research has not emerged. The mission of 
Interior is important but a broader view is needed. The guidance pro- 
vided by COWRR has also been of value but determination of the 
amount of research needed on specific problem areas, both current and 
future, and an attempt to assess future research priorities based on 
emerging or anticipated problems has received little attention. De- 
termination of how limited funds should be allocated within broad 
priority areas has not been adequately addressed. While priorities have 
been identified, they relate mostly to current issues and there is no 
mechanism for assuring optimal allocation of funds. Priorities are 
circulated to potential researchers to guide proposal designs, but there 
is no program to earmark specific funds for a given need or to solicit 
research in direct fashion to satisfy this need. 

The OWRT staff have varied backgrounds and experience and there 
has been little uniformity in the way they have interfaced with the 
State institutes. Their attention has been directed mostly to the routine 
of reviewing research proposals and other administrative duties, and 
they have provided State directors with minimal guidance in terms of 
program planning, development, and management. The Director of 
OWRT might beneficially give this matter careful review and develop 
a policy which would require his office to assign a higher priority to the 
development of a more highly coordinated and more sharply focused 
network of State water resources research institutes. 

(b) State. — There are variations in the quality of the institutes 
which are reflected mostly by the relative importance of water in each 
State and the stature accorded the institute and its director by the host 
university. Institute directors are assigned varying levels of responsi- 
bility to their institutes ranging from a low of 10 percent to full time, 
with the average being about 55 percent. It is difficult to see how State 
and regional coordination, program planning, procurement of funding, 
participation in State and regional water programs of users, and other 
vital functions of an institute director can be performed if he is pri- 

6G-G09— 76 2 



marily a teacher or researcher. Since OWRT has no policy on this, the 
States have been left mainly to their own designs. 

The success of the Public Law 88-379 program rests heavily on the 
philosophy and efforts of the institure directors. In recognition of this, 
the Director of OWRT might profitably give more consideration to 
ways in which he can encourage more uniformity in State institutes 
and provide host institution administrators with more guidance in pre- 
scribing directors' qualifications and defining the role of their 
institutes. 

3. Research 

Estimated water demands and projections of future water problems 
indicate expanded research and technological development to be es- 
sential to the well-being of the Nation. The Public Law 88-379 pro- 
gram has done a good job of identifying needed research and filling 
gaps in agency programs. A greater effort in determining the resources 
needed to fulfill research needs and how these resources should be al- 
located is necessary. More direction and a higher degree of coordina- 
tion of the research program would improve efficiency. Greater involve- 
ment of user groups in research planning and implementation might 
well be promoted. Relative to regional research, input from River 
Basin Commissions, Federal Interstate Commissions, and State 
agencies and institutions having water- and land-related interests 
should be actively sought and incorporated in the research planning 
phase. There exist numerous cost effective uses for increased research 
funding. 

4- Info? v mation Dissemination and Technology Transfer 

Information dissemination and technology transfer programs are 
largely the responsibility of WRSIC and the State institutes. Under 
the reorganization, a new Assistant Director for Technology Transfer 
has been named to coordinate efforts in the latter area. 

(a) The Water Resources Scientific Information Program. — 
OWRT is to be commended for the WRSIC program. It is efficiently 
run and effective, but there are major areas in which improvement can 
be mrsde. More attention should be given to broadening the array of 
users and consideration should be given to equipping each of the State 
institutes with a WRSIC terminal. This is unlikely to occur, however, 
unless a substantial increase in funding is obtained. The fact that in- 
formation services are used if they arc convenient is a key issue. 

(b) Institute Programs. — Most State institutes have initiated some 
form of technology transfer program, but the effectiveness and extent 
of most have been seriously curtailed due to lack of Funds. This, more 
than any other issue, stands as a roadblock to the success of this phase 
of the program. 

6. Coordination, Consultation, and Collaboration 

( )WRT and the ins! itutes have accepted their coordina4 ing roles and 
have made good progress along these lines. It Is probably true thai for 

the dollars invested, this is the most highly coordinated program the 

Federal Government has ever known, 
[mprovements can be made in the coordination of Interior agency 
,rch and Federal agency rese arch in general, although the latter is 
not t he direct responsibility of ( )\VKT. The ability to broadly coordi- 



nate Federal efforts will require an authority and stature that OWRT 
does not presently hold. • 

At the State and regional levels, the institute directors must more 
actively build and maintain strong working relationships with ap- 
propriate State, local, and Federal agencies and other units. The per- 
formance in this respect has been somewhat sketchy and is tied to the 
perspective of the institute director, his status, and other associated 
factors. Further guidance and assistance by the Director of OWRT 
and his staff would help institutes with weaker coordinating machinery 
to develop more effective programs. 

6. Manpower and Training 

The Public Law 88-379 program is the last major source of support 
for water resources manpower development within university struc- 
tures in the United States. Active association of faculty and students 
with research projects builds expertise, attracts scientists into the 
water resources field, and through the employment opportunities 
offered students, develops a continuing manpower base upon which 
governmental agencies, industry, and private enterprise may draw. 

Achievements in training through the Public Law 88-379 program 
have been notable but could be extended if the title I research program 
was funded at the authorized level. 

D. RELATIONSHIP OF OWRT TO THE WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL 

OWRT is responsible for supplementing present programs for 
water research. In meeting this responsibility, it functions across a 
wide spectrum of issues. In its coordinating capacity, it is expected to 
work with a host of Federal and State agencies. COWRR (1966), 
and more recently, the Xational Water Commission (1973), have iden- 
tified research related to planning as being of very high priority. 
OWRT has directed much of its attention to this area, and because of 
the implications, its research output is of significance to the entire 
water and related land resources community. 

Since the Water Resources Council ( WRC) has broad responsibility 
in the water resources planning field and since it acts to coordinate 
planning at the national, regional, and State levels, it has a certain 
commonality with the outlook and objectives of OWRT. A national 
water resources planning program, coupled with a broad-gaged re- 
search arm, is worth considering. At the least, a statutory requirement 
for coordination and intercommunication between WRC and OWRT 
seems desirable. 

E. RELATIONSHIP OF OWRT TO OTHER EXISTING 
OR PROPOSED INSTITUTIONS 

1. Department of Energy and Natural Resources 

During the Nixon administration, the concept of a Department of 
Energy and Natural Resources was proposed. Such a department 
might bo a logical home for OWRT. The organization would likely 
have a broad mandate in the natural resources and energy areas and 
in this respect would remove some of the departmental biases winch 
OWRT is now subject to. The utility of this combination is hard to 



10 

judge without a knowledge of the composition and mission of the new 
department, but it would be worth considering if the concept becomes 
a reality. 
.1. Riccr Study Centers 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972 
(Public Law 92-500) provide in section 104 (s) that : 

The administrator is authorized to make grants to one or more institutions 
of higher education (regionally located and to he designated as '"River Study 
Centers") for the purpose of conducting and reporting on interdisciplinary 
studies on the nature of river systems, including hydrology, biology, ecology, 
economics, the relationship between river uses and land uses, and the effects of 
development within river basins on river systems and on the value of water 
resources and water related activities. No such grant in any fiscal year shall 
exceed $1,000,000. 

This provision has never been implemented, but if funded could 
become directly competitive with the Public Law 88-379 program and 
significantly increase chances for overlap in functions and duplica- 
tion of efforts. The regional groups of Public Law 88-379 institutes 
could perform the functions of the proposed river study centers with- 
out the need for additioinal and costly administrative machinery. It is 
unfortunate that section 104 (s) of Public Law 92-500 makes no refer- 
ence to the Public Law 88-379 institutes. A formal requirement to co- 
ordinate the two programs would be logical, and legislative changes 
to consolidate the two programs or eliminate the authority for river 
study centers would be worth considering. Problems of coordination 
and overlap are perhaps the most serious obstacles to effective water 
resources planning and research, and the proliferation of duplicative 
programs by the Congress has not decreased this problem. 

3. Environmental Research Centers 

In January of 1975. II. P. 35 was introduced in the House of Repre- 
sentatives. This bill would amend the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969 "in order to encourage the establishment of, and to assist, 
State and regional environmental research centers." 

As iii the case of the river study centers, there is an element of com- 
mon function between the proposed environmental centers and the 
water resources research institutes. While the mission of the environ- 
mental centers encompasses a broader field of research, there would 
undoubtedly be a significant area of overlap. There is no provision in 
U.K. 35 to insure coordination and cooperation with the established 
Public Law 88-379 program. Some formal requirement of this type 
would be essential it' effective coordination and cost effectiveness are 
to occur-. In the absence of a statutory mandate, cooperation would be 
highly tenuous and mostly a matter of individual choice. 

F. OPTIONS FOR CHANGE 

OWRT represents a partial implementation of the National Water 
Commission recommend ation to establish an Office of Water Technol- 
ogy, [ts predecessor, OVVKR, developed a successful cooperative 
State-Federal program for research, training, and information dis- 
semination. The future of the new organization depends upon the 
stat lire accorded it by the Congress and the President, funding levels 
provided, and its position in the hierarchy of water resources 
institutions. 



11 

1. Position in the Water Resources Hierarchy 

OWRR was located in the Office of the Secretary of USDI at the 
time it was initiated. On October 28, 1968, it was made responsible 
to the Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research. On 
November 23, 1970, it was placed under the jurisdiction of the As- 
sistant Secretary for Water and Power Development, now the Assist- 
ant Secretary for Water and Land Resources. This change diminished 
the stature of the organization and narrowed its focus on problems 
outside of USDI. In view of the fact that OWRT is ideally suited to 
perform across a broad spectrum of national water research needs and 
does not have a built-in agency bias, its location at an administrative 
level sufficient to command the attention and respect of the entire 
Federal water resources community deserves consideration. Several 
options for accomplishing this are : 

(a) Restore OWRT to its former status in USDI, strengthen 
its mission, and provide appropriate funding. 

(b) Assign OWRT as the research arm of WRC. This would 
tend to enhance the coordination of research within the national 
planning effort and strengthen collaboration with State and re- 
gional planning programs. It would place OWRT in formal con- 
tact with all relevant agencies dealing with water and related land 
resources. The option should be considered, however, only if 
WRC itself is given greater authority. 

(c) Relocate OWRT in a Department of Energy and Natural 
Resources if such an entity is formed. 

OWRT should display independence and flexibility in its conduct 
of research and in identification and prioritization of water resources 
problems. It should serve as a national focus for research in the water 
resources field and play a fundamental role in the training of water 
scientists. In concert with the university community, it should work 
to guide the direction of water resources research and education in the 
best interests of the Nation. 

2. OWRT Role in Development 

Although large development and demonstration programs involving 
extensive hardware should probably be assigned to various action 
agencies, industry, or others, a modest technology development pro- 
gram is necessary if OWRT is to adequately meet its objectives rela- 
tive to saline water technology, water quality improvement, conserva- 
tion practices, energy development, and other areas. This function 
could well be strengthened, clarified, and appropriately funded. 

3. Future of Saline Water R. & D. 

The program of desalination research and technology development 
needs to be reassessed and possibly reorganized. A strong research 
program in desalting seems advisable as opportunities remain for in- 
cremental improvements and breakthroughs in conventional salt water 
conversion and in the treatment of brackish and waste water. This 
program should concentrate on water and material properties and 
laboratory scale processes, rather than undertake large-scale pilot 
facilities. 

4. Coordination 

The problems of coordination are akin to other issues such as au- 
thority of OWRT, and funding level. Unless some changes occur in 



12 

these areas, there is not much likelihood of improvement. The role of 
OWET in coordination should be strengthened and more explicitly 
defined. Changes which enhance coordinating capabilities of all levels 
of contact should be implemented to the maximum extent practical. 

G. CONCLUSIONS 

Considering the limited funding provided, the objectives of the 
Water Resources Research Act of 1964, as amended, have been met 
surprisingly well. Effective State water resources research centers 
have been established and have played an increasingly important role 
in State, regional, and national programs for water resources planning 
and development. A strong national research network is available, 
which has the potential for problem identification and solution prior 
to "crisis'' situations. Funding levels provided have been meager, how- 
ever, and unless increases are forthcoming, it is doubtful if the momen- 
tum achieved by the program can be sustained. 



II. Introduction 

The Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 329), was 
signed into law by President Johnson on July 17, 1964. It stated that : 

In order to assist in assuring the Nation at all times of a supply of water suf- 
ficient in quantity and quality to meet the requirements of its expanding popula- 
tion, it is the purpose of the Congress, by this act, to stimulate, sponsor, provide 
for, and supplement present programs for the conduct of research, investigations, 
experiments, and the training of scientists in the fields of water and of resources 
which affect water. 

Objectives of the act as amended by Public Law 89-404 (1966) and 
Public Law 92-175 (1971) are: 1 

1. To develop, through research, new technology and more ef- 
ficient methods for resolving local, State, and national water re- 
sources problems ; 

2. To train water scientists and engineers through on-the-job 
participation in research work ; and 

3. To facilitate water research coordination and the application 
of research results by means of information dissemination and 
technology transfer. 

The program is implemented through provision of annual allotment 
funds to a designated water resources research institute at a university 
in each State and in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of 
Columbia, and Guam. Funds are also made available to the institutes 
on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis. Other grants may be given and 
contracts made with qualified public or private organizations for sup- 
port of research relating to the mission of the Department of the 
Interior. 

A Water Resources Scientific Information Center (WRSIC) pro- 
vides computer access to several data bases and issues "Selected Water 
Research Abstracts" and "The Water Resources Research Catalog" to 
assist researchers in preparing background for their research. 

The Office of Water Research and Technology (OWRT, formerly 
the Office of Water Resources Research (OWRR) , has designed its re- 
search program to assist in solving problems of importance to the 
States, regions, and the Nation and to support the mission of the De- 
partment of the Interior. There is a continuing assessment of water 
problems and a system for prioritization. This has been informally 
integrated with the Water Resources Council's assessment of critical 
water problems. Regional associations of institutes identify problems 
of importance to their localities and propose research programs to im- 
pact on these. 

On July 26, 1974. by order of the Secretary of the Interior, Rogers C. 
B. Morton, the Office of Water Resources 'Research a?id the Office of 
Saline Water (OSW) were merged to form a new Office of Water 



M'.S. Department of Interior, Office of Water Resources Research. 1074 Annual Report, 
Washington, D.C. 1974. p. 1. 

(13) 



14 

Research and Technology (OWRT). 2 Provisions of the Water Re- 
sources Research Act of 1964 and the Saline Water Conversion Act 
of 1071 are being carried out by OWRT. The programs of the new office 
are categorized under the headings of research, technology develop- 
ment, and scientific information center operations. The research pro- 
gram includes: assistance to States for institutes; matching grams to 
State institutes; and additional water resources research. The fiscal 
year 1976 program of additional water resources research was designed 
to focus on the following issues: saline water conversion research: 
improving water resources planning and management; encouraging 
Indian self-determination; promotion of water use efficiencies; protec- 
tion of the environment: and solving of energy-related water prob- 
lems. The technology development program impacts on saline water 
conversion processes, and technology assessment and research transfer. 
In the following sections of this report, a legislative history of the 
program and an analysis of the program's effectiveness are presented. 
Options for change are identified where appropriate. 



2 The designation OWRT is used interchangeably -with OWRR in the remainder of the 
report even though the change from OWRR to OWRT did not occur until 1974. 



III. Legislative History 

A. RECCOMMENDATIOXS OF SEXATE SELECT COMMITTEE OX XATIOXAL 

WATER RESOURCES 

The 1961 report of the Senate Select Committee on National "Water 
Resource brought to light many inadequacies in Federal programs 
for water research. The Committee noted that of the $40 billion in- 
vested in water resources by the Federal Government, less than one- 
tenth of a percent had been spent on basic and applied research. 

Several suggestions of ways to strengthen and supplement existing 
programs were made. The first was to place greater emphasis on basic 
research. Studies of the molecular chemistry of water, photosynthesis, 
atmospheric physics, solar radiation, and other water-related phenom- 
ena were recommended as having potential to lead to important break- 
throughs in the fields of desalting, weather modification, evapotrans- 
piration reduction, and quantitative forecasting of meteorological 
events. Second, the committee felt that investment in applied research 
and demonstration should be increased. Treatment of sewage and in- 
dustrial wastes was noted as an area needing urgent attention. The 
need for development and demonstration of techniques for efficient 
water use and reuse was also stressed. The committee felt that signifi- 
cant savings could result from these efforts. A third suggestion was to 
increase executive guidance and coordination. The committee recom- 
mended a complete inventory of Federal water research programs to 
serve as the basis for developing a coordinated effort to effectively 
impact on the national needs. 

A number of areas were identified by the Select Committee as need- 
ing additional research. These included i 1 

(a) Reducing evaporation from the surface of reservoirs. 

(b) Elimination of water-loving vegetation along the edges of 
reservoirs and water courses. 

(c) Changing or modifying forest and vegetative cover on 
watersheds to reduce evapotranspiration. 

(d) Reducing seepage losses in irrigation canals and other water 
distribution ssytems, and other wasteful irrigation practices. 

(e) Reduction of dilution requirements for pollution abate- 
ment by development of improved methods for treatment or con- 
trol of waste materials that are disposed of in water. 

(f) Waste water salvage. 

(g) Reuse, recycling, and elimination of wasteful water use by 
industry. 

(h) Desalting of saline and brackish water, 
(i) Weather modification. 



! U.S. Congress, Senate, Report of the Select Committee on National Water Resources, 
S. Kept. 29, 87th Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 30, 1961, pp. 51-52. 

(15) 



16 

(j) More accurate quantitative forecasting of meteorological 
events. 

(k) Application of nuclear products in research. 
(1) Improved use and control of ground water. 
It was also recommended that economic incentives for water con- 
servation, alternative uses of water, system planning for multiple use 
of water, and economic effects of existing projects be studied more 
fully by those in the field of economic and social sciences. 

Response to the select committee's recommendations came in Presi- 
dent John F. Kennedy's natural resources message to Congress on 
February 23, 1961. 2 Addressing the broad subject of natural resources 
trch, President Kennedy asked the National Academy of Sciences 
to: 

Undertake a thorough and broadly based study and evaluation of the present 
state of research underlying the conservation, development, and use of natural 
resources, how they are formed, replenished, and may be substituted for. and 
giving particular attention to needs for basic research and to projects that will 
provide a better basis for natural resource planning and policy formulation. 

The President added : 

Pending recommendations of the Academy, I have directed my science advisor 
and the Federal Council for Science and Technology to review ongoing Federal 
research activities in the field of natural resources and to determine ways to 
strengthen the total Government research effort relating to natural resources. 

The President requested the Academy to promptly initiate this eval- 
uation and set an early target date for its completion. Following this 
lead, the Federal Council for Science and Technology (FCST) estab- 
lished a subcommittee on Water Resources Research under its Com- 
mittee on Natural Resources to work on the review of water resources 
research programs called for in the President's message. 

B. THE WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT OF 19G4 (PUBLIC LAW 

8 8-3 7 9 ) 

Tn January 1002. before any studies were finalized, the President 
submitted his budget for fiscal year 1903 containing a proposal to 
esl ablish an Institute of Water Research within the Geological Survey. 
The proposal was deleted by the House Committee on Appropriations 
because it was felt that inadequate time had been spent in developing 
the expanded program and in determining how it should be coordinated 
with the work of other Federal water-related agencies. 1 

Congress initiated its activities related to the water research area 
with an announcement by Senator Anderson that hearings were to 
be held by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to 
follow up the Select Committee's recommendations. The committee 
notified the Federal agencies by letter asking them to furnish infor- 
mation pertaining to their water research programs and activities 
along with comments or ideas relative to the development of a co- 
ordinated water research program. Letters requesting similar infor- 



■-■ r - i •-. "Natural Besourcea" message from th<> President of the United States, 
H. Doc '■■» B7th cut:.. 1st m^ss . Feb. 23, 1961. 

. appendix to the Budget <»f the U.S. Government for fiscal year ending June .TO, 
1963. January 1962, p. 488. 
»U.fl Congress, House, n. Bept 1440, accompanying H.B. 10802, 87th Cong., 2d 
L962, p. 14. 



17 

mation were sent to land-grant colleges and universities, other edu- 
cational institutions, private foundations and firms, and individuals. 

The committee suggested following the approach taken toward 
agricultural research by the Hatch Act and Senator Anderson adopted 
this idea. On July 27, 1962, he introduced S. 3579 of the 87th Con- 
gress, second session, which provided for the establishment of water 
resources research institutes at the land-grant colleges and universi- 
ties with an equal program of aid for water research at other colleges, 
universities, and private agencies. 

The bill consisted of three titles. The first two related to establish- 
ing water resources research institutes at land-grant colleges and 
universities and to promote a more adequate national program of 
water research, while the third title covered administrative obliga- 
tions of the two programs. In noting that the bill was designed as 
a copy of the Hatch Act in relation to water research, Senator 
Anderson said : 5 

The bill I have introduced today to establish water resources research insti- 
tutes at the land-grant colleges and State universities and to encourage water 
research at other colleges and universities, foundations, private research agen- 
cies and individuals is an effort to copy and expand the agricultural experi- 
ment station system and the pattern on which it was built. 

Much of the language of the bill is in the form of the Hatch Act of 1887, or a 
revision and codification of that act and laws supplementing it, which was 
passed by Congress and approved August 11, 1955. 

The proposed Water Resources Service parallels the Department of Agri- 
culture's Cooperative State Experiment Station Service. 

Title I of the bill authorized an appropriation of $75,000 increas- 
ing by $12,500 a year until reaching $100,000 to each State and Puerto 
Rico to help establish a water resources research institute at a land- 
grant college or university. It also authorized $1 million, increasing by 
$1 million a year to $5 million, for the Secretary of the Interior to use 
to match State, local, and donated funds for specific water research 
projects at the institutes. 

Title II established a Water Resources Service in the Department 
of the Interior to administer the programs of the act. It also provided 
for a separate research fund of $5 million increasing by $1 million 
to $10 million to be used for matching, for grants, or for contracts to 
support useful water research which would not otherwise be under- 
taken. 

Title III covered miscellaneous provisions of administering both 
titles I and II. 

More than 100 responses to letters asking for opinions from Federal 
and State agencies, colleges and universities, foundations, companies, 
and individuals were received by the Senate Committee on Interior 
and .Insular Affairs. Several major points were common to most re- 
plies. These included: An expression of the need for more funda- 
mental scientific research in the water resources field; a citation of 
the shortage of water scientists; a recognition that the Nation's col- 
leges and universities could play a major role in training the needed 
scientists and technicians ; and a concern over the lack of centers where 



5 Memorandum of the chairman to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 
U.S. Senate, transmitting Reports of Federal Institutions, and Individuals, on Water 
Research Activities, U.S. Congress, Senate, "Water Resources Research," committee print, 
Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, STth Cong., 2d sess., Septemher 1972. 



18 

State and local officials, farmers, recreation planners and administra- 
tors, soil conservationists, and others could turn for information and 
research assistance. 

While the committee was assessing responses to its query, the evalua- 
tion by the National Academy of Sciences of the overall national re- 
search program was progressing. The review of the ongoing research 
programs by the Federal Council for Science and Technology had 
bogged down, however, over the inability of the Federal agencies to 
formulate a program for Federal water research. 

The report of the National Academy of Sciences was completed in 
November 1962. It included studies of water, minerals, energy, the 
renewable resources of food and fiber, marine resources, the physical 
environment of man. and the economic and sociological considerations 
related to resource planning and practice. The summary report gave 
special attention to the lack of hydroscientists, inadequate research 
facilities and the need to encourage and strengthen water sciences 
programs at universities and colleges. 

The Committee on Natural Resources of FOST believed the recom- 
mendations of the Academy identified major courses of action to be fol- 
lowed by the Federal Government in establishing a national program 
of resources research. The Academy's recommendations with respect 
to water resources research were : 7 

(1) Increase support of hydrologieal research ; 

(2) Develop comprehensive analytical techniques for the plan- 
ning and management of water resources ; 

(3) Conduct research on pollution and its effects ; 

(4) Develop systems analysis capability for resource planning 
and management ; and 

(5) Establish a central natural resources group within the Fed- 
eral Government whose primary purpose could be to evaluate 
and coordinate an integrated program of resources research, in- 
cluding water. 

The Academy report on water resources research 8 recognized the 
absence of any institutional structure to accommodate multidiscipli- 
riary studies and identified major areas of physical science research 
capable of contributing to the understanding and resolution of water 
irees problems. 9 The report also recommended expansion in hy- 
droscience education and training and the development of related 
fields both within the Federal Government and in higher education. 

On January 11. 1963, Senator Anderson reintroduced bis proposal 
for a wafer resources research act as S. 2 of the 88th ( longress. The bill, 
cosponsored by 29 other Senators, was t itled : 

A bill to establish water resources research ••filters ai land grant colleges and 
universities, to stimulate water research al other colleges, universities and cen- 
ters of competence, and to promote a more adequate national program <»f water 
i rcn. 

Senator Anderson's introductory statement on S. 2 spoke in some 

detail of the background and intent of the bill. 10 lie explained that 



• National Academv of Rcienrei National Research Council, "Nn^on^l Re««ur 
Summary Renort." Committee on Natural Resources, publication 1000, Nor. 26, I 

: Mid., pp. 81 

rional academy <>f Rciencei National Researcb Council, "National Resonre< \ 
Sumn ■•" Committee on Natural Resources, publication n»nn B, Nov. 26, 1062. 

• rblrt . op 20 28 

'■• t i agressions! Record, rol. ion, pt 1, 88th Conp., 1st scrs., pp. 202-210. 



19 

many constructive suggestions relative to S. 3579 had been used to de- 
velop a more acceptable bill intended to contribute to the implementa- 
tion of the Senate Select Committee's recommendation to establish 
a comprehensive Federal water research program. 

Title I was little changed from S. 3579. It provided for Federal 
financial assistance to land-grant colleges, universities, and other com- 
petent higher educational institutions in each State and established 
water resources research institutes in the general pattern of the Hatch 
Act of 1887. The institutes were expected to provide solutions to local 
problems and simultaneously add to the Nation's store of knowledge. 

The title II provision of S. 3579 authorizing a Water Resources 
Service in USD! was eliminated in title II of S. 2. Title II of the new 
bill authorized the Secretary to make grants, matching agreements, and 
contracts with other colleges and universities. States and other govern- 
mental agencies, private foundations and other institutions, firms and 
individuals for conducting water research projects within the scope 
of the Department of the Interior's authority. It authorized appropria- 
tions of $5 million for the 1st fiscal year, increasing to $10 million over 
the next 5 years. 

Title III authorized the formation of a Water Resources Service and 
provided for cooperation with the Federal agencies and preparation of 
a water resources research catalog. 

The water research program of S. 2 was not designed to expand di- 
rect Federal reserach work, but to supplement Federal agency pro- 
grams on a local level as the agricultural experiment stations had done 
in relationship to Federal agricultural research at Beltsville. 

A comment received in the interim period between S. 3579 and S. 2 
was that regional centers should be considered in some cases in lieu of 
individual State centers. In response to this suggestion, the wording 
of S. 2 was changed. The original bill, S. 3579. provided for funds for 
a center to be distributed to a land-grant college or university, or 
"such substantial equivalent arrangements as the State shall deter- 
mine." This provision was modified in S. 2 to specify a land-grant in- 
stitution or "other institution of higher education as the State shall 
determine.'' This revision was intended to clarify the State's choice in 
designating the college or university it considered best qualified for 
conducting interdisciplinary water research work. S. 2 was further 
changed from S. 3579 by allowing two or more States to join in a 
single interstate or regional water research institute, although Senator 
Anderson commented : 

There should be some discretion in the bill, but I am prepared to defend * * * 
the wisdom of staying close to the pattern of the Hatch Act of 1887 — which 
authorized the establishment of experiment stations at the land-grant school 
in each State. 

Supporting this. Senator Anderson cited comments from the Presi- 
dent's Science Advisory Commission on "Meeting Manpower Xceds in 
Science and Technology" : 11 

Nowhere are the benefits of scientific research more dramatically revealed than 
in food production * * *. This accomplishment can be directly attributed to re- 
search that has been systematically supported by the Federal Government, the 
States, and private sources * * *. As a consequence, universities have been 
eminently able to meet changing needs. 



u Ibid., p. 204. 



20 

Similar conclusions were reached by the Committee on Natural Re- 
sources of the National Academy of Sciences-National Research 
Council and the National Science Foundation saying that the Federal 
Government should "enlist the potentials of land-grant institutions'" 
to cover all aspects of natural resources research. 12 

The Federal agencies endorsed the bill almost unanimously on the 
basic objectives, with suggestions for amendments being offered. Some 
were incorporated within the bill while those that weren't were 
promised careful examination during committee hearings and execu- 
tive sessions. 

The Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, the 
Interstate Conference on Water Problems of the Council of State 
Governments, and the American Society of Civil Engineers also 
expressed their support of the proposed bill. 

S. 2 was accompanied by three identical bills introduced in the 
House — H.R. 2683 by Congressman Thomas Morris of New Mexico; 
II.R. 2689 by Congressman Teague of Texas; and H.R, 4048 by Con- 
gressman Matthews of Florida. Subsequently, several other bills 
identical to the Senate-passed version were introduced as follows : H.R. 
7234 by Congressman Edmondson of Oklahoma; H.R. 7239 by Con- 
gressman Johnson of California, and U.K. 7258 by Congressman Gray 
of Illinois. All were referred to the House Committee on Interior and 
Insular Affairs for review and consideration. 

On February 18, 1963, a report by a task group of the Federal 
Council for Science and Technology on water resources research activi- 
ties was transmitted by the President to the Senate. The report was 
part of the overall review by FCST of Federal natural resources re- 
search activities. 

Senator Henry M. Jackson, succeeding Senator Anderson as chair- 
man of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, had the 
report published as a committee print. 18 The President recommended 
(hat Congress consider the report: (1) In conjunction with fiscal year 
1964 I Midget requests which provided for increased support of water 
resources research; and, (2) in connection with new legislation needed 
to stimulate the water research field. 

Senator Jackson reviewed the report as: 

The first careful and comprehensive study of water resources research in the 
Federal Establishment 

lie recognized that: 

The report has great value beyond the uses recommended by the President, a 

great ninny institutions in the field of water and related resources research are 

seeking copies both for Information and for gudaince in shaping their own re- 
ch programs. 

The foreword of (lie report outlined live objectives: (1) To identify 

Federal research needed to solve problems of water management and 
control ; ( -) to prepare, in terms of their relevance to applied problems, 
an inventory of Federal research ami development programs; (■)) to 
develop policy proposals for an expanded research program; (1) to 



" Ibid., r . .204. 

••U.S. Congress, Senate, "Federal Water Resource! Research Activities." memorandum 
of the chairman to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, I'.s. Senate, transmit- 
ting 'tie report to the President on Water Resources Research prepared by the Federal 
Council for Science and Technology, committee prim, 88th Cong., 1st .-ess.. .Mar. !!."», 1963. 



21 

compile for fiscal year 1964, a proposed national program of water re- 
sources research; and (5) to suggest an outline of policy for needed 
mechanisms or legislation for further interagency coordination. 

The report dealt with numerous subjects including the need for water 
resources research, the responsibilities of the Federal Government and 
of the several Federal agencies, an inventory of Federal agency re- 
search programs, manpower needs, coordinating mechanisms and 
clarification of responsibilities, and possible legislation. 

The task group stated that : 

Even without an extensive evaluation, deficiencies in intramural and extra- 
mural education and training, in research on ground water — and in socioeconomic 
research are so evident that we can immediately recognize the need for increased 
future effort in these fields. 1 * 

Recognizing the need to attract students into the water resources 
arena, the task group recommended that Federal agencies develop 
grant and contract programs with universities. Six steps were outlined : 

(a) Educational assistance measures, such as training grants, 
facilities grants, research fellowships, and institutional grants 
should be developed by the Federal agencies engaged in water 
resources research and additional appropriations authorized to 
permit this. 

(b) To strengthen and encourage interdisciplinary research 
programs in water, institutional and training grants were recom- 
mended to be made on a selected basis. Institutions having compe- 
tence in the physical and biological sciences, engineering, and the 
social sciences were to be given consideration. 

(c) Fuller utilization of procedures for inservice training were 
recommended. 

(d) Support of extramural activities at universities such as 
those conducted in cooperation with the Public Health Service 
should be extended to the Department of the Interior and the 
Corps of Engineers. 

(e) Cooperative arrangements between Federal research es- 
tablishments and the universities should be strengthened and ex- 
tended where possible to permit Federal agencies to take part in 
training new scientists. 

(/) Funds should be developed to strengthen the in-house re- 
search competence, particularly in basic research, of the Federal 
agencies. 
The report by the Senate Select Committee on Water Resources 
called for : 

Concerted efforts to achieve effective coordination of the research activities 
of the Federal agencies involved, and for such clarification of responsibilities as 
may be necessary to make the most effective use of public and private resources. 

The task group pointed out that several agencies had overlapping 
responsibilities and missions in water resources research. To reinforce 
coordination at all levels, the task group recommended consideration 
of the following : 

(A) Measures to improve communication between water re- 
sources research specialists, technical directors, and program 
managers. 



" Ibid., p. 181. 



22 

(B) Measures to provide for the circulation of comprehensive 
and timely information on projects currently underway through- 
out the Government in the water resources research field. 

(C) The Federal Council for Science and Technology should 
make determinations of technical leadership by different agencies 
keeping in mind their principal operating and research respon- 
sibilities. Clarification of water resources research responsibilities 
should be approached on tbe basis of a division of technical effort. 
Once the clarification is made, specific research categories would 
be assigned to the agencies so named for their technical leader- 
ship. All would be informed of related work and competence in 
other organizations, and would draw upon such existing 
competence. 

(D) The Office of Science and Technology and the Federal 
Council for Science and Technology would be assigned the respon- 
sibility of interagency coordination of water resources research. 
This would be accomplished through a coordinating committee 
involving both technical and managerial personnel assisted by 
technical panels and a small full time analytical staff. Tbe task 
group recommended that the chairman of the committee have a 
comparable rank to that of an Assistant Secretary. 

(F) To advise the Federal Council in identifying longer range 
objectives and needs in water resources research and education, 
the task force recommended a continuing mechanism representa- 
tive of the views of the scientific and engineering community. 
The last recommendation was directed toward the National Acad- 
emy of Sciences, while the others mainly concerned the executive 
agencies involved in water resources. 

The task group also called for new legislation to strengthen the 
contributions of universities to graduate education and research in 
water resources, specifically recommending that : 

(A) All agencies engaged in water resources activities should 
be able to make grants to and contracts with any university in 
support of their missions. 

(B) Additional water resources research centers should be 
established in universities and programs of existing centers 
strengthened. 

(C) Some Federal support to each center on a continuing basis 
would be necessary in order to accomplish (B) in addition to 
support provided by (A). The universities should be allowed to 
determine how tbe support would be used. 

(I)) Support sbonld be given to the water research centers (1) 
on tbe basis of a small formula amount to establish or strengthen 
a research center and (2) another amount on a matching of funds 

basis Giving consideration to research potential of the institution. 

( E ) Without superseding authorities already established in the 
Several agencies, one Federal agency should be invested with the 

administrative responsibilities for carrying out (D) (1) and (2). 
In the case of (D)(2), other agencies with substantive interests 

in the field of water- resources should be consulted in the award- 
ing of grants and in drawing up evaluations. 



23 

(F) Government scientists and engineers should be able to 
teach and conduct research at the water resources research centers 
through arrangements with host institutions. 
The Federal Council for Science and Technology evaluated and 
qualified the recommendations of the task group. With regard to 
(D)(1), the Federal Council agreed that in each State, at least one 
research center could be established with Federal grants, under ex- 
plicit qualification standards. 

The report was transmitted to the Senate on February 19, 1963 15 
and to the House on February 21, 1963 1G to permit its use in connec- 
tion with the Administration's testimony on S. 2. 

1. Seriate Hearings on S. 2 

The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs held hear- 
ings on S. 2 on February 19 and 20, 1963. 17 The committee reviewed 
reports from various Federal agencies with interests in water research. 
The reports of the Xational Academy of Sciences on "Water Resources 
and the report of the Task Group on Coordinated Water Resources 
Research of the Federal Council for Science and Technology received 
commendations from Senator Anderson for their contents. The report 
of USDI was the most detailed, however, and stated, "We strongly 
recommend the enactment of this legislation." 

Letters from the Bureau of the Budget, the Office of Science and 
Technology, and the Department of the Army endorsed the bill, 
especially the expansion of State water research and the use of uni- 
versities to supplement Federal agency research. 

The Federal Power Commission supported the purposes and ob- 
jectives of the bill taking note that the bill refrained from providing 
the Secretary of the Interior 

any authority or surveillance over water resources research conducted by any 
other agency of the Federal Government, nor shall it be construed as repealing, 
superseding, or diminishing existing authorities or responsibilities of any agency 
of the Federal Government to plan or conduct, contract for, or assist in research 
in its areas of responsibility and concern with water resources. 

The report submitted by the Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare raised doubts about the bill. First, the Department questioned 
the need for title I of the proposal. The Department felt the appro- 
priations authorized in title II were desirable and in accord with the 
traditional methods of Federal research participation and that this 
provision would be adequate enough to involve the scientific com- 
munity, both public and private, in all disciplines, therefore author- 
izations for research centers in title I was of little need. The 
Department of Agriculture also disliked the provisions of title I say- 
ing in their letter. 

The Department of Agriculture's long history of effective, cooperative, and 
coordinated work with the * * * land-grant colleges * * * further established 
its position of leadership in conducting the type of effort proposed in title T of 
the bill. The proposed administrative arrangements in title I would unavoidably 
complicate this relationship and generate new problems of research coordination 
at the State level. 



1_ ' [J.S. Congress, Congressional Record, vol. 109, nt.. 2. SSth Cone:., 1st sess., p. 249.">. 

10 Thid., n. 27f,0. 

17 I'.S. Congress, Senate. "Writer Resources Research Act." hearings before the Com- 
mitter on Interior and Insular Affairs on S. 2, U.S. Senate, 8Sth Con?:., 1st sess., Feb. 19 
and 20. 

GG-609— 76 3 



24 

The USDA wholeheartedly supported title II, but wished it to be 
broadened to include the Secretary of Agriculture so that the tech- 
nical competence of both departments would strengthen the total 

effort in water resources research. 

Feeiing that increased emphasis should be placed on water resources 
and related research, the Department of Commerce favored the 
objectives of S. 2 but stated that the establishment of arch 

centers "mi^ht result in duplication of effort and consequently some 
inefficiency." 

Testimony by Stewart L. Udall, Secretary of the Interior, opened 
the hearing on S. 2. The Secretary referred to the iiv.-rea.-ed attention 
being given to water resources research by comparing the 1962 water 
irch budget of USDI of $17.5 million to $35 million requested 
in the 1964 budget. He stated that to develop the needed water re- 
resources research program, it would be necessary to: (1) greatly 
strengthen Federal agency research "because it is the principal source 
of competence in water problems that are national in scope": (2) 
fully utilize research resources of the universities in training critically 
needed scientists and engineers: (3) use the water research centers at 
State universities to work on State and local water resources prob- 
lems; and (4) enlist research competence at any university, college, 
mic institution, or any other nlace where it may exist. The 
etary voiced full support for the bill's provision for dissemination 
of information on research activities and he recognized the President's 
Office of Science and Technology as the leadership and coordination 
center for all Federal science research. His preliminary views on the 
'anics of the proposed program of S. 2 were : 

a- .1 !i;i»n for deejsion on whether to award a grant or contract, I ex- 
pect to rely to a considerable extent on consultants who should be the besl men 
in each of the scientific and engineering fields involved. These technical experts 
would ho qualified to advise on the technical merit of research proposals • * *. 
Through the continuing leadership of the President's Office of Science and Tech- 
\ there would be Interdepartmental coordination so as to avoid duplication 
or other unproductive expenditures of money or technical manpower ' 

* * * Furthermore, the program would need to '" v considered both as to its 
overall technical adequacy and also as to the broad public interest * • 
Secretary of the Interior would have responsibilities to advise with the universi- 
ties * * * I am confident thai this function can ho mutually beneficial both to 
the universities and to the Government * * * about what is dime with Federal 
funds thai may be granted to non-Federal organizations. I feel that this bill, S. 
2. provides for fiscal responsibility and accountability so thai reasonably simple 
procedures will give the needed protection in this regard * * * 

Following Secretary Detail's statement, Senator McGovern raised 
the question of whether training: competent people was not more im- 
portant than research. Senator Jordan of rdaho asked whether a com- 
prehensive inventory of research projects would not be useful for 
guidance. The Secretary agreed that such an inventory should be a 
I, and hoped thai Federal and State agencies and universities would 
cooperate fully in supplying information on projects already under- 
way. Senator Nelson asked whether the Department of the Enterior 
would initiate proji ell as receive proposals. The Secretary 

responded that the Department would be responsible for making re- 
search suggestions to the universities. Senator Nelson then asked 
whether water pollution activities would be included in the siT^srested 
ml, subjects. The Secretary answered that the Interior Depart- 
ment was interested in certain types of pollution hut that the Depart- 



25 

ment of Health, Education, and Welfare had the principal program 
in that area. 

The next witness was T. C. Byerly, Administrator of the Coopera- 
tive State Experiment Station Service testifying on behalf of the 
Department of Agriculture. He said that the department supported 
the bill, but added : 

* * * The State agricultural experiment stations conduct water resources 
research oriented to rhe needs of agriculture and rural communities in the 
broadest sen.se. Research in most of the areas designated in title I, section 100(a) 
is in progress Dt one or more of these stations. The total amount of such research 
is inadequate. S. 2 provides additional authority to increase it. 

* * * The problem of coordinating research authorized under title I, section 
100(a) within the recipient institutions will be complex and varied. "Water re- 
sources research in the agricultural experiment stations must be coordinated with 
all other water resources research in the parent institutions if the most effective 
use of all resources is to be achieved * * * 

Through questioning by Senator Anderson, Mr. Byerly said it was 
his opinion that water resources research was not being '"adequately 
supported in any" of the agricultural experiment stations associated 
with land-grant colleges and universities. 

Mr. Bverlv then continued to express the Department's concern for 
S. 2: 

* * * The Department of Agriculture is concerned that the proposed bill covers 
only a part of the total coordinated program of scientific research on water as 
requested by the Senate Select Committee . . . We strongly support title II, 
section 200. Similar authority to make grants for mission-oriented research is 
needed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture * * * 

* * * We recognize the need for cooperation, coordination, and communication, 
the purposes of title III, section 300. We question whether it is the most effective 
form of organization to authorize one of the departments participating in water 
research to exercise a coordinating role in relation to the activities of other de- 
partments. We suggest that this coordinating role might more properly be exer- 
cised by the Executive Office of the President. Information storage and retrieval 
with respect to current research can be expedited by the Science Information 
Exchange * * * 

Senator Anderson challenged the statement of Mr. Byerly concern- 
ing the "authorization for the Department of the Interior to exercise 
a coordinating role over the activities of the other departments." Sena- 
tor Anderson said S. 2 made no attempt to coordinate the programs of 
other departments. He explained : 

This was put in so the Secretary of the Interior could get information on what 
other agencies were doing so he could judge his program accordingly. He would 
not be interested in the slightest in other things they are doing. I don't think 
there is any intention to do this in this bill * * * 

Senator McGovern ended the discussion by quoting section 3 

Nothing in the foregoing section nor in this Act is intended nor shall be con- 
strued as giving its Secretary or the Department of the Interior any authority 
over water resources research conducted by any other agency of the Federal Gov- 
ernment. It seems to me this language is very clear. 

Public witnesses testifying on S. 2 included a panel of five State 
university educators, scholars and experts in water research, and repre- 
sentatives from concerned organizations. After their testimony. Sena- 
tor Anderson directed the following question to the panel : 

There has been some criticism that the bill doesn't provide adequate oversight 
and regulation of research in the States. Would it he a mistake to have excessive 
Federal supervision of the State programs in your opinion? 



26 

Dr. W. E. Morgan, president of Colorado State University and 
chairman of the National Association of State Universities and Land- 
Grant Colleges' Water Resources Committee replied: 

Certainly the States recognize that the people of the country through their 
Federal Government are entitled to be assured that funds made available by 
Congress to States will be put to good use. But when we embark upon an 
objective such as the broad one outlined in the Anderson bill, concentrated 
in one place, to direct the really productive use of these funds — some of this 
inquiry would be very basic in nature. At the other extreme, some of the in- 
quiry would be very practical in nature — and to imagine that creativity in- 
volved in this national fund of scientific talent and professional competence 
would flourish under conditions of distant control is to imagine something 
that just won't happen * * * 

Senator Anderson reiterated this opinion by saying, "I am glad to 
have your answer. States should not be left free to make mistakes 
spending this sum, $100,000 a year, but they should not be hamstrung." 

Hearings on S. 2 resumed on February 20. Senator Hruska of 
Nebraska testified before the committee to voice his strong support 
of S. 2. Following this, the director of the Office of Science and Tech- 
nology and the President's Science Advisor, Dr. Jerome B. TVeisner 
stated the Office's position on the bill and said that it should conform 
to the suggestions made in the report by the Office's task group sub- 
mitted February 18. 

Again the committee discussed the provision of S. 2 which desig- 
nated a single agency (USDI), to administer a national program. 
Dr. AVeisner commented : 

* * * I am also aware of the historical and legislative development of the 
interests and missions of other major Federal departments and agencies in 
water resources research. The bill would not place the Department of the In- 
terior in a controlling position. However, I would like to emphasize that * * * 
the Department of the Interior should in effect serve as an executive agent 
in furthering the interests of all of the agencies in their common objective of 
strengthening the water resources requests capabilities of the Nation. 

The continuing leadership for interagency coordination and for securing 
Interagency agreement on the national water resources research program will 
be provided through the Office of Science and Technology and the Federal Council 
for Science and Technology * * * 

Dr. Weisner continued saying he thought it would not be wise to 
include provision in the legislation for a current catalog of water 
resources research and investigation projects in progress or scheduled 
because: 

* * * water resources research is but one of a number of important areas of 

< h activity that require :i current inventory of ongoing efforts, only one 
of a very large number. The Federal Council for Science and Technology has 
the matter of scientific and technical information, including this problem, under 

study * * * 

Dr. Weisner concluded liis testimony by recommending thai the 
Federal Government strengthen its in-house research competency. 

After statements by various public witnesses in support of S. 2, the 
hearings were concluded. 

n vt< Report 0718.2 
The Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs reported 
favorably on S. -2 18 and recommended passage of the bill on April 8, 



'"I nntr, S. Kept. 117, on S. 2, Interior and Insular AfT.iIrs Committee. 

B8tfl Cong . 1st mm., Apr. v L9I 



27 

1963. In giving the background of the bill, the committee noted that 
water research would offer increased opportunities to reduce the 
costs of water resources development. This was considered important 
in light of projections by the Senate Select Committee on Xational 
Water Resources and the Task Force on Water Resources Research 
of the Federal Council for Science and Technology that the water 
requirements of several regions of the United States would exceed 
their usable supply by the year 2000 A.D. 

The report's principal findings were: (1) to regard State-oriented 
water research centers as desirable: and (2) to look upon extramural 
research in a "few centers of excellence" by Federal agencies as a 
dubious approach. The committee reasoned that water problems were 
not only national, but State and local as well. The report also noted 
that encouragement of 50 water research centers might create some 
problems and suggested that, wherever productive, two or more States 
might join funds and establish a single center. The Secretary of the 
Interior was provided latitude by S. 2 to encourage the formation of 
such joint ventures where desirable. 

The need for multidisciplinary training and research at colleges 
and universities was emphasized by the committee report and it fully 
supported the provision of S. 2 to satisfy this need. 

S. 2 was not found to provide for the coordination of Federal agency 
water research programs, nor for allowing Federal agencies to con- 
tract with universities to conduct research in support of their missions. 
It did not grant authority for Government scientists and engineers to 
teach and take part in water research at the universities housing the 
water resources research institutes. Although the committee felt that 
such provisions went beyond the jurisdiction of the Senate Interior 
Committee, the members went on record as being in accord with them. 

The committee reiterated its position on unnecessary Federal inter- 
ference saying : 

The committee does not feel that there should be unnecessary Federal inter- 
ference in the basic operation of State institutes or centers. Overdone, it can 
straitjacket water research in the centers across the Nation under a single, 
central set of concepts when a variety of aproaches and the genius of many 
minds could better be allowed expression. 

Colleges and universities have widely demonstrated their great ability to 
administer research programs and to link them fruitfully with teaching. 

The pattern of the agricultural experiment station program, a cooperative 
Federal-State venture, has created such outstanding results that the wisdom of 
leaving to the colleges and universities decisions on conduct of their basic pro- 
grams would be extremely difficult to question. 

In conclusion, the report concurred with Senator Anderson's intro- 
ductory statement on S. 2 that the bill was not presented as a total 
Federal water resources research program. 

3. Senate Debate on S. 2 

Senate consideration of S. 2 began on April 22, 1963 with expressions 
of support for the bill and the work by Senator Anderson and the 
committee. 19 

Senator Anderson reviewed the history of S. 2 and noted that the 
bill had come from the Senate Interior Committee without opposition. 



19 U.S. Congress, Congressional Record, vol. 109, pt. 5, SSth Cong., 1st sess., pp. 
6705-671G. 



28 

While speaking in support of the purposes and objectives of S. 2, 
Senator Allott of Colorado stated his concern with the program. 
Senator Allott wondered if a permanent program of $20 million 
annually, in addition to the proposed $76.4 million for the Federal 
water research program in fiscal year 1964, would function correctly, 
fill a justifiable need, and whether it would overlap with work already 
underway elsewhere. The Senator added that much of the research 
to be done at colleges ''will, in fact, overlap work which is presently 
being financed by the National Science Foundation in those particular 

For this reason. Senator Allott proposed amendments to place a 
5-year limitation on all three phases of the bill. He stated that this 
would enable Congress to evaluate and determine whether the prog] ess 
of the program warranted continuation. 

Senators Mansfield. Dodd, and Moss of Utah spoke in favor of S. 2. 
Senator Metcalf cited a letter received by the Senate Interior Commit- 
tee from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. 21 The Senator 
said that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 'mas agreed that a new 
; ral program, entailing Federal expenditures, is needed and would 
serve a useful purpose." The communication included some su££ested 
amendments, but Senator Metcalf pointed out the main point was 
"its agreement that S. 2 has merit." Senator Metcalf noted that the 
amendments were similar to those proposed by Senator Allott, to 
which he was opposed. 

Senate consideration resumed on April 23, 22 at which time the bill 
was opened for amendment. Senator Allott submitted an amendment 
to change the language of section 100(a) to clarify who controlled the 
research at the land-grant colleges and institutes. The Senator felt the 
language of section 100(a) 

makes the bill uncertain * * * I do not know who determines what is desirable. So 
the purpose of my amendment is to bo certain that the institution in the particular 
State where the problems arc being studied is the judge of what the specific 
problems are and what is advisable, and in what case it is advisable. 

He felt that the Secretary of the Interior should not have "control of 
money or a project where he has a say as to what i< necessary." He 
said further,"] think it is foe the State to say which ones are advisable 

and which ones are not.*' 

Senator Anderson commented on the amendment : 

* * * this amendment directly poses the question of whether the paramounl 
authority is in the Federal Government or the local institutions and centers. It 
happened that Dr. Jerome i'». Weisner, Director of the Office of Science and Tech- 
nology, and the Bureau of the Budget, supported an exactly opposite position i<> 
thai being proposed. They Boughl greater Federal authority. 

The Hatch Act and this hill both contain sections providing that nothing 
within the acl shall change Hi'' relationship between colleges or universities and 

their Slates. This act carries thai Language. The Stales are jealous of their 

prerogatives. Tiny should nol he overridden. Bui there musl he Borne Federal 

pa r! Icipal i"ii in decisions. 

* * * By using the langauge of the Hatch Act in s. 2, we attempt t<> carry over 

to the water field the same mutually Satisfactory relationship which exists in 

the agricultural field, which involves a Bharing in the decisions as to "advis- 
ability" of projects and policies rather than a sharp granting of Ultimate au- 
thority I., one Side or the other. 



Jbid., p. 6718. 
■ Ibid., nj>. -;71 » 6716. 
"TLB. Congress, Congressional Record. \<>i 106, pt 5, 68th Cong., 1st soss., pp. 

c.TTJ 6' 



29 

* * * I do not know of any objection being made to our proposal by any land- 
grant colleges. We have not stopped any land-grant college by the exercise of 
blind authority here in Washington. . . 

* * * So far as I know no land-grant college has suggested that this proposed 
change should be made. 

Senator Ailott replied to Senator Anderson by saying : 

* * * I should like to say that his arguments in behalf of his position are net 
persuasive, to me at least. They add up to one thing, that we are drafting a bill 
which is purposely vague, and we are being vague because we do not want to be 
tied down * * * 

* * * Citing the Hatch Act is somewhat analogous, but not completely, because 
we are dealing with completely different areas, the areas of water. I believe we 
have a different type of problem to deal with. 

All I want is to be sure of what we are doing when we write this particular 
sentence: "It shall be the duty of each such institute or center to plan and con- 
duct — as may in each case be deemed advisable." * * * 

* * * If we mean that we believe, as I believe, that our land-grant colleges can 
do a better job of determining the direction of our water research than can the 
Secretary of the Interior, then let us follow that plan, that it be left to the deci- 
sion of the institute or center which has done the job. 

Amendment No. 54 was rejected by the Senate. 

Amendment No. 49 was next called up for consideration. The 
amendment proposed to strike out section 302 of title III dealing with 
the formation of a new agency within the Department of the Interior. 
Senator Ailott was opposed to adding any new bureaus and agencies 
to the Department when such organizations already existed within the 
Department that would be able to handle the responsibilities. The 
Senator cited a letter from the Bureau of the Budget saying that the 
establishment of a water resources service was "unnecessary and 
undesirable." 

Senator Anderson replied saying that several agencies within the 
Department would try to grab aspects of the program and use them 
for their own purposes. This would result in a fragmentation of the 
program and render it ineffective. He said : 

* * * Colleges, universities, and other research agencies would have to shop 
among the limited-objective agencies with research projects. The multidiscipli- 
nary approach we seek would not be attained. 

The amendment was accepted by Senator Anderson. hoveve7\ say- 
ing he was reluctant to insist upon statutory provision for a particular 
executive office or service. The Senate agreed to the amendment. 

The next amendment was not printed, thus unnumbered, and had to 
do with title I, section 104 clarifying the powers of the Secretary of 
the Interior in determining whether a State would receive its annual 
appropriation. The section read : 

On or before the 1st day of July in each year after the passage of this Act, 

the Secretary of the Interior shall ascertain as to each State whether it is en- 
titled to receive its share of the annual appropriations for water resources re- 
search, under section 100(a) of this act and the amount which thereupon each 
is entitled, respectively, to receive. 

Senator Allott's amendment added : 

* * * after the word "ascertain", the following: "whether the require! 
of section 101 have been met." 

The Senator felt this would subject the Secretary of the Interior to 
the use of definite criteria for determination of whether the State 
would receive its annual appropriation and would strengthen the 
guidelines of section 101 pertaining to land-grant colleges. 



30 

Senator Anderson felt that the language seemed satisfactory and 
the Senate adopted the amendment. 

Xext to be called up by Senator Allott was amendment Xo. 53 re- 
lating to section 305 to call for the Secretary of the Interior to make 
"a comprehensive report on progress and accomplishment under the 
act" within 2 years after the enactment of the act instead of 6 years 
as the section read. 

The Senator felt 6 years was too long to wait for an evaluation of a 
program involving an open-ended authorization of funds. The Senate 
agreed to amendment Xo. 53. 

Senator Allott called amendment Xo. 50 relating to the authorization 
of money for the Secretary of the Interior to "make grants, contracts, 
matching or other arrangements with educational institutions; with 
private firms and individuals: and with local. State, or Federal Gov- 
ernment agencies to undertake research into any aspects of water 
problems related to the mission of the Department of the Interior 
which may be deemed desirable and are not otherwise being studied. 

The bill authorized $5 million increasing by $1 million to $10 mil- 
lion for that purpose. Senator Allott's amendment authorized $5 mil- 
lion beginning fiscal year 1964 and lasting the next 4 fiscal years. 

Senator Anderson vigorously opposed this amendment during con- 
siderable debate and the amendment was finally defeated by a roll 
call vote of 61-30. 23 

Senator Cotton, of Xew Hampshire, then submitted five amend- 
ments, all reducing the amount of authorization by 20 percent. These 
were considered en block and defeated in a roll call vote of 58-29. 24 

Senator Miller of Iowa, submitted an amendment to section 100(a) 
to clarify the State's power of designation in relation to who would 
receive the program. Using an example from his own State, Senator 
Miller explained: 

* * * I would like to have the bill provide that discretion is given the Stale 
of Iowa to whether it may have this program carried at both Iowa State at 
Ames and at the State University of Iowa at Iowa City. The amendment will 
give the State that choice. 

Further, he said : 

* * * The way the bill reads now, it seems it could possibly be Interpreted 
that a land-grant college could receive the program, or, if a land-grant college 

was not designated by a State, then one or mere institutions of higher learning 
within the State could he determined upon by the state. 

It seems to me we ought to leave it up to the State legislature whether it 
wanted to have both a land-grant college and (me or more universities or in- 
stitutions of higher learning in the State so designated. This amendment pro 
vides thai a State will have that power. 

Recognizing that the situation exist ed not only in Town, Senator 

Anderson accepted I he amendment and it was agreed to by tin 4 Senate. 

Senator Long railed up amendment No. 56 which proposed to add 

a new section preceding section ."><».*> of title III. This new section 

guaranteed that "all information, uses, products, processes, patents, 
and other- developments resulting from that activity (scientific or 
technological research or development) will (with such exemptions 
and limitations as the Secretary may determine after consultation 
with the Secretary of Defense to he necessary in the interest of the 



» I hiif., p, CT^o 

* Ibid . p 6781. 



31 

national defense) be made freely and fully ay a liable to the general 
public.*' 

Senator Long said this amendment would "make sure that the public 
gets the benefit of any inventions that might result, and that no 
private patents will be obtained as a result of Government research.*' 

Senator Long noted that the Secretary of the Interior supported the 
amendment in his report on the bill. Senator Morse of Oregon also 
spoke in favor of the proposed amendment. After acceptance by 
Senator Anderson, the Senate agreed to the proposal. 

The final amendment to S. 2 was called up by Senator Allott. The 
amendment proposed to change the wording of section 304 of title 
III to allow for advance payments of the intial expense of water 
resources research conducted under contracts or other arrangements 
by an educational institution or nonprofit organization. Senator 
Anderson accepted the amendment and the Senate agreed to its adop- 
tion. 

Following favorable comemnts by several Senators. S. 2, as amended, 
was passed by unanimous consent on April 23, 1963. On April 24, 
1963, the House received the measure and referred it to the House 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 

^. House Committee Hearings 

S. 2 was considered by the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclama- 
tion along with companion bills H.R. 2683 (Morris), H.R. 2689 
(Teague), H.R. 4048 (Matthews), H.R. 7234 (Edmondson). H.R. 
7239 (Johnson of California) , and H.R, 7258 (Gray) . 25 The first three 
bills were identical to S. 2 before it was amended by the Senate. The 
last three were identical to the Senate-passed version of S. 2. 

The Departments of the Interior, Agriculture. Army, and Health. 
Education, and Welfare along with the Office of Science and Tech- 
nology, the Bureau of the Budget, and the General Accounting Office 
had filed reports with the House Committee similar in content to the 
ones filed in the Senate during consideration of S. 2. Congressmen 
Morris of New Mexico. Reifel of South Dakota, and Fraser of Minne- 
sota submitted statements to the subcommittee in support of the 
legislation. Congressmen Teague and Matthews also submitted sup- 
porting statements and were questioned by the members of the 
subcommittee. 

Dr. Theodore C. Byerly, Administrator of the Cooperative State 
Experiment Station Service of the Department of Agriculture and 
Dr. J. Herbert Holloman, Assistant Secretary for Science and Tech- 
nology of the Department of Commerce were the first Federal 
witnesses to be questioned (June 24, 1963). They supported the objec- 
tives of the legislation but expressed doubts on several of the 
provisions. 

On June 25, Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall testified 
strongly in favor of the legislation. He was subjected to active ques- 
tioning by subcommittee members, including Congressman Aspinall. 
chairman of the full committee. Questioning continued all morning, 
and the hearings resumed on July 22, 1963. 



88 D.S. CYmsrrpss. House hearings before the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Reclama- 
tion of the House Committee on Intorior and Insular Aff:<irs. Juno 24 and 25. .Tnlv 22 
nnd 23. Sept. 30 and Oct. 1. 1003 (bills S. 2, H.R. 2083. H.R. 20S9. H.R. 404S. H.R. 7234. 
H.R. 7230. and H.R. 72r,S). ssth Cong. 1st sess., serial No. 9, pt. 1. "Government Wit- 
nesses" ; j.t. II. "Public Witnesses." 



32 

On the fhird day of hearings, Eugene W. Weber, Deputy Director 

of Civil Works for Policy, Corps of Engineers, Department of the 
Army; Secretary James A. Quigley of the Department of Health, 
Education, and Welfare; and Dr. Jerome B. Weisner, Director of the 
( WEce of Science and Technology were heard by the subcommittee. 
Dr. Randal M. Robertson, Associate Director (Research) of the Na- 
tional Science Foundation testified on the following day to conclude 
the hearing of Federal witnesses. 

The hearings resumed for public witnesses on September 30, 1963. 
First to be heard was a group of five representatives of universities 
headed by Dr. William E. Morgan of Colorado State University, 
chairman of the Water Resources committee of the Xational Associa- 
tion of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. Each representa- 
tive addressed himself to a particular aspect of the proposal including 
the subjects of manpower resources, agricultural problems, and fund- 
ing provisions. Dr. Morgan said his association unanimously endorsed 
the purposes and objectives of the legislation. 

The panel also discussed scientific and engineering needs with em- 
phasis on a water inventory, manpower needs, the nature and adequacy 
of appropriations, and the impact of the bill on State institutions. 

The hearings continued on October 1, 1963, with Acting Chairman 
of the Subcommittee Congressman Aspinall accepting statements from 
other public witnesses. 

5. II oi i ne Committee Report on S. 2 

Following consideration in executive session by the Subcommittee 
on Irrigation and Reclamation and by the full Committee on Interior 
and Insular Affairs, the House committee report 20 was submitted on 
February 10, 1964. The report recommended passage of S. 2 with the 
substitution of a new text for the Senate-passed bill as the only 
amendment. 

The three principal changes in the bill were: (1) deletion of title 
II; (2) a 10-year limitation on authorizations; and (3) authorization 
for the President to catalog water research and clarify water research 
programs of the Federal Government. 

The House committee rejected title II because it felt that : 

(1) A more modest approach should be taken: 

(2) The Secretary of the Interior was not provided with ade- 
quate controls or guidance over the administration of the title TT 
program; 

(3) The only requirement placed on title TT research by the 
Senate version was thai it be related to the Department of the 
Interior's mission. The committee felt thai ihe Departmenl of the 
Interior and the Geological Survey already possessed authority 
to do this; 

M ) The subjed of title IT authorizations was paid little atten- 
tion during the hearings by witnesses leading the committee to 
believe thai there was no widespread need for if at that til 

(5) The committee prefered thai an intense efforl be made a1 
increasing the number of qualified wafer scientists and tech- 
nicians; and 



U.S. Congre -. House, n. Kept. 1136, B8th Cong., 2.1 leM., Feb. 10, 1964 



33 

(6) Before getting involved in a permanent major program of 

non-Federal water research assistance, the committee felt it wise 

to judge the progress of the university research first. 

The House bill provided authorization for only one research center 

per State with the annual grant going to the land-grant college in each 

State unless the State legislature designated another institution. The 

House committee felt that more than one center per State would 

dissipate funds. The committee further adopted language encouraging 

two or more States to form interstate or regional centers. 

6. House Debate on S. 2 

S. 2 was called under an open rule of 2 hours of debate by House 
Eesolution 711 27 on June 2, 1964. The purpose of the legislation was 
explained by a member of the House Rules Committee, Congressman 
Sisk, as being "to strengthen the contribution that universities make 
to water resources." Chairman Aspinall added that the total cost of 
the 10-year program would bo $38,450,000. It was hoped, Congressman 
Aspinall said, that research done by the land-grant college of a State 
would be directed towards water problems of that area and State. 

Upon resolving into the Committee of the Whole House on the State 
of the Union, Mr. Aspinall described the purposes of S. 2 in the follow- 
ing terms : 

* * * I believe that no one questions the need for expanding water resources 
activities. The question involved here is the extent of Federal financial assistance 
from the Federal Government. We have tried to make certain in this legislation 
that the limited expenditures authorized are fully justified. I believe we have 
provided the guidelines and the controls that are needed to assure extensive 
benefits and returns, for the dollars spent. 

The legislation that came over from the other body provided for a larger pro- 
gram * * * Dollarwise, we reduced the program 50 percent and limited the 
life of the program to 10 years * * ::: 

The Secretary of the Interior would be charged with the responsibility for 
proper administration of the program and for assuring the effective research 
work is conducted. We believe that the Secretary of the Interior can meet this 
responsibility without any appreciable increase in supervisory personnel or 
without establishing any new office or agency * * * 

The most important part of this legislation may turn out to be, not the new 
research program at State level, but the provisions in title II which call for 
establishing a center for cataloging scientific research in all fields of water 
resources, and give congressional direction to the President to clarify Federal 
agency responsibilities * * * and provide * * * interagency coordination of all 
water research activities. This latter provision was not in the legislation that 
came over from the other body * * * 

The committee strongly believes that there should be no more than one re- 
search center in each State * * * I might point out that there is nothing to 
prevent arrangements within a State whereby some of the research work can 
be done by institutions other than the one receiving the grant * * * 

A question has been raised as to why we chose the land-grant colleges. There 
have been, throughout the decades of our national life, many suggestions that 
we have a University of the United States. The nearest we can coin" to a 
I niversity of the United States is the Federal Government's sponsorship of land- 
grant colleges. This, in effect, is the reason why we have chosen the land-grant 
colleges * * * 

Following Mr. Aspinall's presentation. Congressman John Saylor, 
ranking minority member of the TTon^e Interior Committee, advocated 
passage of the legislation. Focusing his comments on the Federal Gov- 
ernment effort contained in the legislation, Mr. Saylor said the most 



27 U.S. Congress. Con^rrssionnl Roronl. vol. 110. pt. 0. SSfli Cong., 2il soss.. pp. 
124r,l-12409. 



34 

important parts of the legislation were provisions for interagency 
coordination, the new provisions for the establishment of a cataloging 
center and the Presidential clarification of Federal agency responsibil- 
ities. With respect to the last provision, Congressman Saylor said : 

* * * This direction by law should strengthen the hand of the President in 
resolving this problem. It should provide the authority needed to clarify and 
delineate agency responsibilities and to limit their operations, thereby providing 
full and effective coordination of all water resources activities in the Federal 
Establishment. 

Congressman Walter Rogers of Texas, chairman of the Subcommit- 
tee on Irrigation and Reclamation which held hearings on S. 2 led a 
discussion of the separate titles of the bill. Congressman Waggoner 
of Louisiana, asked whether the Secretary of the Interior would 
always allot a State's proportionate funds to the land-grant college, 
unless specified otherwise by an act of the State Legislature. 

Mr. Rogers replied: 

* * * With this exception: The application must be filed with the Secretary 
of the Interior and unless the application filed by the land-grant college or any 
other college, even that designated by the legislature, meets the requirements to 
carry out the purposes of this bill, then the Secretary of the Interior would not 
be, in my opinion, obligated to make the grant to the college simply because 
it was a land-grant college. 

He further explained: 

* * * It was thought that this was a move to preserve and protect the dignity 
and power of the States or the rights of the State legislatures. Certainly, if they 
wanted to make a change, they should have the right to do so. Any of these 
institutions, however designated, must meet the capability requirements set up 
by the Secretary of the Interior. 

The most frequently asked question, Congressman Rogers said, was 
whether the institution receiving the Federal grant for research pro- 
vided by the legislation would be able to contract out to other profit 
and nonprofit organizations to carry out research. 

His reply was: 

* * * I think that would depend upon the application made to the Secretary 
of the Interior, specifying the type research that they wanted to perform. Cer- 
tainly, it ought to be within the power of the university or the land-grant college 
to farm our some work in connection with their overall projects to a nonprofit 
corporation or a profitmaking corporation * * * if this information is needed in 
the research problem with which they are working and could be obtained at a 
much chen per cost or even >at a cheaper cost than if they had to set up new- 
facilities at the university with which to perform this research. Certainly, I 
hope that will be the policy which will be followed. 

Congressman Jonas of North Carolina thought it unusual to allocate 
the same amount of funds to each State for purposes of research. 
Congressman Rogers said the committee had discussed this wide dis- 
persion <>f funds but felt the provisions of the bill were appropriate. 

('<>riL r n -man Jonas then asked whether funds would be available 
to States which did not have a program in this field, or would the funds 

trictly supplementary to help an orderly program already present 
in certain States. Congressman Rogers said that each application for 
funds would have to meet, requirements set by the Secretary of 
the Interior. He continued, saying : 

* * * it w.-ts anticipated there mlghl be st.Mics thai had perhaps a small 
operation * * * thai would want to join with another State or two <>r three 



35 

other States, and put up one institution for regional development Provision is 
made in this bill so that these States can join together. But they must not only 
make a sound case when they present it to the Secretary of the Interior for the 
original grant, but they must report to him each year and the Secretary must 
report to the Congress * * * on the development * * * 

Congressman McClory of Illinois asked whether any duplication 
of research efforts would exist between the State, interstate, and re- 
gional centers. Congressman Rogers replied: 

* * * we cannot and would not undertake to interfere with the State research 
program. But it was anticipated that the Secretary of the Interior in going 
into these applications for these grants to be used in a university or land-grant 
college could ask for information as to what practices and procedures were 
being pursued by the State on this particular problem and he could also then 
weigh that information against the information he had from these other agencies 
in the Federal Government to determine the justification for the particular re- 
search program that was being proposed. If there was a duplication or over- 
lapping, we had hoped that the Secretary * * * would make the suggestion to 
the applicant that certain changes be made * * * 

Congressman Hall asked if any duplication would exist with work 
of other departments such as the Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare. 

Congressman Rogers replied that he expected little difficulty in es- 
tablishing interdepartmental coordination. If the Secretary of the 
Interior did experience any trouble, he would be expected to report it 
to Congress in his annual reports. 

Congressman Hall continued, asking whether water research would 
become subject to a jurisdiction fight between departments. 

Congressman Rogers said emphatically that this would not occur 
because of the measure in title II calling for executive determination of 
responsibilities. 

Hoping that Congress could maintain effective legislative oversight, 
Congressman Hall then asked whether pollution problems such as 
toxic materials causing fishkills could be researched by the centers. 

Congressman Rogers cited from the select committee's list of particu- 
lar items needing research : 

(e) Reduction of dilution requirements for pollution abatement by development 
of improved methods for treatment or control of waste materials that are de- 
posited in water * * * 

Congressman Rogers and the committee felt this subsection covered 
Mr. Hall's question and hoped the departments would interpret it as 
such. Congressman Aspinall added : 

I would like to clear up the record on this. This part of the report from the 
Senate Select Committee was not put in here as a matter of limitation of activi- 
ties but rather in explanation, and all matters having to do with water and 
keeping it in a potable condition will be considered. 

Congressman Taft of Ohio asked what rules and regulations were 
provided for the Secretary of the Interior to administer the act. 

Congressman Rogers replied that it was not anticipated that the 
Secretary would try to change or circumvent the law, but if any uni- 
versity or land-grant college suspected any such doings, they should 
report it directly to Congress. 

Congressman Daddarrio of Connecticut offered an amendment to 
strike out section 203 and substitute the following language : 

Sec. 203. In carrying out the provisions of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior 
shall adhere to the Statement of the Government Patent Policy which was 



36 

promulgated by the President in his memorandum of October 10, 1963 (3 C.F.K., 
1963 Supp., p. 238) 

Congressman Holifielcl registered his discontent with the President's 
memorandum, sayings : 

* * * I just wanted the record to show that some of us at least have grave 
doubts as to the protection which the taxpayer receives under the Government 
memorandum. 

Before the Daddario amendment was considered. Congressman 
Aspinall submitted an amendment recommended by the Bureau of the 
Budget "to obtain greater flexibility in the timing of Federal payments 
under Government programs in order to insure that such payments are 
not made prematurely and before actually needed." The amendment 
read : 

On Page 15, line 18, after section 102, strike out the first sentence of section 102 
and insert "Sums available to the Stales under the terms of section 100 and 101 
of this Act shall be paid to their designated institutes at such times and in such 
amounts during each fiscal year as determined by the Secretary, and upon 
vouchers approved by him." 

Tliis amendment was approved as was the Daddario amendment. 

Congressman Keith of Massachusetts submitted an amendment to 
require the States to authorize matching funds for the initial stage of 
the water resources research program. In his experience at State level. 
Congressman Keith said, regardless of extent and need, any Federal 
program offering financial assistance without requiring matching 
funds would be supported wholeheartedly by the States. Congressman 
Rogers objected to such an amendment saying : 

* * * it would be bad to insert this at this time because it would be an addi- 
tional imposition on the States. This program is intended more or less as a sup- 
plemental program in water research and in scientific research development. The 
amount of money involved in this going to each State is not going to be sufficient 
to set up a separate and distinct program. 

The Keith amendment was rejected by a vote of 6 ayes to IS noes. 

Congressman Taft offered the last amendment which was to assure 
'the college or university itself should make the choice of the area of 
research." He further said: 

* * * The rules and regulations which the Secretary of the Interior might pre- 
scribe shall only relate to the procedures to bo followed * * * 

( longressman Rogers again spoke in opposition : 

* * * I do not think this type of amendment should he adopted in any legis- 
lation passed by the Congress for the reason there has Long been a contesl with 
regard to the extent of the authority of the departments downtown to enact rules 
and regulations that gel over into the legislative held. The Constitution * * * 
provides that the legislative powers are vested in Congress * * *. When you add 
an isolated amendment like this to a bill of tins kind, you simply open the door 
for the departments and agencies downtown to s:iy every time this is not spelled 
out in ;i hill * * * that the authority was Implied to do anything they wanted 
to • • • 

The Taft amendment was rejected. 

A fter agreeing to t lie committee amendment of S. 2, the ( Committee 
of the Whole House reported the bill back to the House where it was 

approved and passed by unanimous consent. 

The t itle now read : 

An a< t to establish water resources research centers at land grant colleges and 

State universities, to promote a more adequate national program Of water re- 
sell rch, and for other purposes. 



37 

7. Conference Report on S. 2 

The Senate disagreed to the House amendment on June 8, 1964, and 
the presiding officer appointed Senators Jackson, Anderson, Bible, 
Kuchel, and Allott as conferees. 28 The House appointed Congressmen 
Aspinal, Rogers of Texas, Haley, Saylor, and Burton of Utah 29 after 
unanimously insisting on the House amendment and agreeing to com- 
mit S. 2 to conference. 

On June 29, 1964, Senator Allott was replaced by Senator Jordan of 
Idaho due to his absence from the city. 30 

The conference committee came to an agreement on a substitute text 
for S. 2. This was reported back to Congress an June 30, 1964 as House 
Report No. 1526, 88th Congress, 2d session. 31 Five changes were made 
in the House version of S. 2 by the conference committee as follows : 

Title I, section 100(a) was amended by removing the 10-year limitation for the 
program. The section now reads : "There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary of the Interior for the fiscal year 19G5 and each subsequent year there- 
after." This represented an abandonment of the House position on the life of the 
program. In turn, an understanding was stated in the report of the managers of 
the House, that the program would be reviewed periodically by legislative com- 
mittees to determine whether the program should be continued. 

Section 100(a) was further amended permitting the Governor of the State 
to designate the institute or institutions that would receive the program in ab- 
sence of a legislative decision. 

In title I, section 101(a), the 10-year limitation on authorizations was again 
removed in favor of the Senate version of no limitation. 

The conferees inserted a new title II, renumbering the House-passed version 
title III. The new title II was a modified version of title II of the Senate-passed 
bill under the heading of "Additional Water Resources Research Programs." 
Authorizations were reduced to $1 million annually and the contracts for grants 
must lay before the Congress 60 days before any authorization may be made 
subject to approval by both House and Senate Interior Committees. 

The Senate-passed patent policy was reinstated into now title II. 

The House accepted the conference report with a vote of 348-0 32 
with 84 members not voting. The Senate accepted the report by 
unanimous consent. 33 The President received the enrolled bill on 
July 6, 1964 and signed it on July 20, 1964 to become Public Law 
88-379. President Johnson expressed concern over the act when ap- 
proving the bill calling it a violation of the legislative and executive 
separation of powers requirement of the Constitution. 

His objection read as follows : 

The Water Resources Research Act of 1964, which I have approved today. 
fills a vital need. 

Abundant good water is essential to continued economic growth and progress. 
The Congress has found that we have entered a period in which acute water 
shortages are hampering our industries, our agriculture, our recreation, and 
our individual health and happiness. 

Assuming a continuation of current practices, by the year 2000 there will not 
be enough usable water to meet the water requirements of parts of the States 
of Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa. 
Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 
Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Penn- 
sylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 



28 U.S. Congress, Cong. Rec, vol. 110. pt. 10, 88th Cong.. 2d sess., pp. 12020-12930 

29 U.S. Congress, Cong. Rec, vol. 110, pt. 10, 88th Cone:.. 2d s<><s., pp. 1 :?72S-137°9 

30 U.S. Congress, Cong. Rec, vol. 110, pt. 12, 88th Cong., 2d sess., p. 15325. 
3l U.S Congress, Cong Rec, vol. 110, pt. 12, 88th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 15904-15909 
32 Ibid., pp. 15006-15907. 

■" Ibid., p. 15858. 



38 

The legislation will help us solve this problem. It will create local centers 
of water research. It will enlist the intellectual power of universities and re- 
search institutes in a nationwide effort to conserve and utilize our water 
resources for the common benefit. The new centers will be concerned with 
municipal and regional, as well as with national water problems. Their ready 
accessibility to State and local officials will permit each problem to be attacked 
on an individual basis, the only way in which the complex characteristics of 
each water deficiency can be resolved. The bill contemplates a high degree of 
interstate cooperation, and I urge that this be encouraged. 

In large measure, this legislation is a tribute to the vision and wisdom of 
Senator Clinton P. Anderson, of New Mexico. He has long recognized the prob- 
lems, lie developed the program. He guided it through Congress. He has been 
in the forefront of the effort to see that adequate supplies of water are available 
in all parts of the Nation. 

One provision of the bill, however, causes me serious concern, and I request 
its deletion. The Secretary of the Interior, in administering the program is 
required, in effect, to obtain the approval of the committees of the House and 
Senate for each water research grant or contract. Although this legislation 
is so phrased that it is not technically subject to constitutional objection, it 
violated the spirit of the constitutional requirements of separation of power be- 
tween the executive and legislative branches. It is both inappropriate and in- 
effective for committees of the Congress to participate in the award of indi- 
vidual contracts or grants. Apart from the question of the relationship between 
the executive and legislative branches, the delays which would ensue from the 
suggested procedure would be detrimental to both scientific research and the 
timely achievement of the important mission of the legislation. 

To remedy President Johnson's objections to the provisions of title 
1 1. Senator Jackson introduced S. 3039 in the 88th Congress. A simi- 
lar bill was introduced by Congressman Bray numbered H.R. 12755. 
These were referred to the Senate and House Interior Committees 
respectively, but no action was taken. 

The President informed the live Cabinet Secretaries involved in 
water resources research by a memorandum dated October 24, 19(U 
that he was asking the Office of Science and Technology to work in 
dose cooperation with the Bureau of the Budget and departments and 
agencies concerned to assist in the clarification and coordination of 
water resources research responsibilities. 

The President also directed the Science Information Exchange and 
the Smithsonian Institute to prepare a catalog of water resources re- 
search. 

The establishment of the Office of Water Resources Research within 
USD] was announced by proclamation in the Federal Register. 3 * Pend- 
ing enact ment of legislation deleting a provision of title 1 1, the Presi- 
dent's request for funding to implement the Water Resources Research 
Act did not contain funds for title II. 

Public Law 88 379 with subsequent amendments is given in its en- 
t Lrety in the Appendix. 

0. si BS] Ql i \r LEGISLATIVE ACTION 

/. Public Law 89 404 

Five months following the enactment of Public Law 88 379, Sena- 
tor Anderson introduced S. 22 of the 89th Congress to restore the 
Senate'-, Language to title II as passed in L963. 

As originally proposed by the Senate, title II appropriated $5 mil- 
lion increasing si million each year for 5 years to $10 million for the 



:t i ederal Register, rol 29, No. 234, p. 16188, Dec. B, L964. 



39 

Secretary of the Interior to use for matching grants, contracts, and 
other agreements with any colleges, universities, private institutions, 
foundations, firms, or individuals with competence to undertake water 
research activities. Title II was eliminated in the House version of S. 
2 but the House agreed to restore it in conference. The conference ver- 
sion of title II authorized $1 million each year for 10 years for the 
Secretary of the Interior to enter into contracts, matching grants, and 
other agreements with capable institutions excluding those who re- 
ceived title I assistance. All contracts were to be submitted to both 
the House and Senate Interior Committees for approval or disapproval 
President Johnson signed the bill but objected to this pro vision on 
the grounds that it violated the separation-of -powers provision of the 
Constitution. Futher response in the form of resolutions for the re- 
establishment of the Senate version of title II by the Association of 
State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, a group of research in- 
stitutes including the Stanford Research Institute and the Illinois In- 
stitute of Technology and others prompted the introduction of S. 22. 
S. 22 repealed section 200(a) of the Water Eesources Research Act 
which read : 

Sec. 200. There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the In- 
terior $1 million in fiscal year 1965 and $1 million in each of the 9 fiscal years 
thereafter from which he may make grants, contracts, matching:, or other arrange- 
ments with educational institutions (other than those establishing institutes 
under title I of this act), private foundations or other institutions; with private 
firms and individuals : and with local, State, and Federal Government agencies, 
to undertake reseach into any aspects of water problems related to the mission 
of the Department of the Interior, which may be deemed desirable and are not 
otherwise being studied. The Secretary shall submit each such proposed grant, 
contract, or other arrangement to the President of the Senate and the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives, and no appropriation shall be made to finance 
the same until 60 calendar days (which 60 days, however, shall not include days 
on which either the House of Representatives or the Senate is not in session be- 
cause of an adjournment of more than 3 calendar days) after such submission 
and then only if. within said 60 days, neither the Committee on Interior and 
Insular Affairs of the House of Representatives nor the Committee on Interior 
and Insular Affairs of the Senate disapproves the same. 

and enacted in lieu thereof the following : 

Sec. 200. There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the In- 
terior $5 million in fiscal year 1966, increasing $1 million annually for 5 years, 
and continuing at $10 million annually thereafter from which he may make 
grants, contracts, matching, or other arrangements with educational institutions, 
private foundations, or other institutions: with private firms and individuals; 
and with local. State, or Federal Government agencies, to undertake research into 
any aspects of water problems related to the mission of the Department of the 
Interior, which may be deemed desirable and are not otherwise being studied. 

On March 2 and 3, 1965, hearings on S. 22 were held before the Sub- 
committee on Irrigation and Reclamation of the House Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs. The subcommittee received testimony 
from the Secretary of the Interior, the Bureau of the Budget, the Of- 
fice of Water Eesources Research, the National Reclamation Associa- 
tion, the Interstate Conference on Water Problems of the Council of 
State Governments, Senators Bayh and Fong, and institute and uni- 
versity representatives from various parts of the country. 

The hearings centered around three major amendments to title II. 
The first increased the authorization for appropriations for title II to 
$5 million the first year increasing by $1 million for 5 years and then 

GG-G09 — 7G 4 



40 

continuing at $10 million. The 10-year appropriation limitation was 
also removed. Phillip Hughes, Assistant Director for Legislative Ref- 
erence, Bureau of the Budget commented on the increase in appropria- 
tions by saying: 

A- to the enlargement of appropriations authorizations for title II research, 
the complexity and number of water problems related to the mission of the 
Department of the Interior appear to be great enough to indicate clearly that 
SI mil lieu annually is insufficient to support good research leading to their 

solut: 

The second amendment eliminated the requirement to submit all 
proposed title IT research projects to the House and Senate for ap- 
proval and for appropriations to be withheld until after a 60-day 
period during which neither the House Committee on Interior and 
Insula!- Affairs nor the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs disapproved of the project. 

It was this provision which President Johnson requested removal 
of on grounds that it violated the spirit of the Constitution. The issue 
was raised numerous times in statements and testimony received before 
the committee. Phillip Glick, general counsel to the National Associa- 
tion of Soil and Water Conservation Districts, said in reference to this 
point : 

The Congress may certainly set aside an executive action which it disapproves 
by enacting a statute to that effect, out I submit that the Constitution does not 
authorize it to set aside an executive action of which a committee of Congress 
disapproves by making any and every appropriation intended ineffectual, that 
executive anion subject to a sinj^e member's point of order by which the Coi 

Id be bound. It is my opinion, therefore, that the quoted provision 
re than violate the spirit of the constitutional requiren 
of the separation of power; I am afraid it violates the requirement itself. 

The third change proposed by S. 22 was i<> remove the restriction 
denying title II assistance to title I appropriations recipients. Secre- 
tary- of the Interior Stewart L. Udall wrote in his communication 

that: 36 

The third objective of S. 22 — dropping the prohibition against associating with 

institutions maintaining water resources research institutes — makes eminent 
sense. These institutions and the educational centers where they are located are 
likely to be the loci of niueb water resources research capability in the Nation. 
The Secretary should have the authority to look to this capability to accomplish 
t be purpose nf title II. 

The Secretary went on to say that provisions prevent ing duplication 
fjf research would not be affected by this amendment and would fully 
apply to the title I assistance recipients. 

The subcommittee reported the hill out on March 22, 1965," with 
one clarifying amendment. The hill authorized the Secretary to use 
title II appropriations to make: 

* * * grants, contracts, matching, or other arrangements with educational 
Institutions, private foundations, or other Institutions; with private firms and 
Individuals; and with Local, state, and Federal Government agencies, t»> under- 
take research into any aspects of water problems related to the mi-si. m <>f tbe 
Department of the Interior, which may be deemed desirable and are not otber- 

wise being Bt adled. 

The amendment changed "with private linns and individuals" to 
'•with those private firms and individuals whose training, experience. 



"U.S. Congretl Senate Committee on Interior and Tnsular Affairs, Water Resources 
h, bearlngi on s. L'-'. 80th Congresi, 1st seas., Mar. 2 and 3, l'JG3, D 4. 
p 2 and 8 

i >ept. 127, s : ( tii Cong., 1st mm., I960. 



41 

and qualifications are, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Inte- 
rior, adequate for the conduct of water research projects:". 

S. 22 was passed on March 25, 1965 and sent to the House for 
consideration. 

The companion bill of S. 22 was introduced by Congressman 
O'Brien on January 26. 1965. as H.R. 3606. Provisions of the bill were 
identical to S. 22 before amendment. 

Hearings on H.R. 3606 and several identical bills (H.R. 5930. by 
Mr. Hanley of New York : H.R. 6282. by Mr. Pickle ; and H.R. 8916. by 
Mr. Ashley) were held by the Subcommittee on Irrigation and Recla- 
mation on' February 14, 15, and 18, 1966. S. 22, as amended, was also 
considered at that time. 

Supporting testimony was received from Under Secretary of the 
Interior John A. Carver; Dr. Roland Renne, Director. OWRR: 
Dr. Dean F. Peterson, chairman of the Committee on Water Resources 
of the Office of Science and Technology ; a number of Congressmen ; 
and representatives from universities and private concerns. 38 

Repealing of the 10-year limitation drew favorable comments from 
the witnesses, but not from the subcommittee. Congressman Haley, 
during his questioning of Dr. Thomas F. Bates, Science Adviser to the 
Secretary of the Interior, said : 39 

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that I have any questions. I would just like to say, 
Mr. Secretary, that insofar as water research I think that you know the attitude 
of this committee. It is something that we are vitally interested in. But you 
continue to come here and present legislation with an open-ended bill of this 
kind ; in other words, there is no end to it at all. Probably 10 years is as long 
as you people in the department will be down there and as long as I will be in the 
Congress, and I think we should have a ceiling on this project so that at least 
future Congresses have will have an opportunity to take a look to see where 
you spend the taxpayer's money and what you are accomplishing. So I would be 
absoutely opposed to ever giving you any such open-end authority in this or any 
other legislation. 

As a matter of fact, I think it would be wise to have every Congress review 
these programs to see how well you are doing and what you are really accom- 
plishing. 

The subcommittee was defensive in its reasoning against repealing 
the congressional oversight provision in section 200 of the Water 
Resources Research Act. Congressman Rogers of Texas, chairman of 
the subcommittee, stated in his questioning of Under Secretary of 
the Interior the Honorable John Carver, Jr., that : 40 

* * * the Executive and the administrative departments ask for, and then 
the Executive refuses, for some reason or other, to ask for the funds which he 
himself has approved in his signature of the appropriation bill, then the Presi- 
dent sees fit, for some reason or other, to use his authority and cut down expen- 
ditures and state to the people of the Nation that this is done in the name of 
efficiency and economy, making it appear as if the Congress of the United States 
was the body which was the spendthrift. 

The subcommittee reported its findings on March 20, 1060 41 as 
House Report Xo. 1350. The report included one amendment which 
substituted a new text for H.R. 3000. 

The new language of the bill added to section 200 two new 
subsections. 



"U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. "Water Resources 
Research." hearings on H.R. 3606 and S. 22 and related bills, 89th Cong., 2d sess., Feb. 
14 J5. «nd IS 1966, p. 6. 

88 Ibid., p. 37. 

*° Ibid., p. 32. 

41 U.S. Congress, House Report 1350, 89th Cong., 2d sess., 1966. 



42 

Subsection (a) authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior 
$5,000,000 for the fiscal year 1967, $6,000,000 for the fiscal year 196S, $7,000,000 
for the fiscal year 1969, $8,000,000 for the fiscal year 1970, $9,000,000 for the fiscal 
year 1971, and $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1972-1976, inclusive, from 
which appropriations the Secretary may make grants to and finance contracts 
and matching or other arrangements with educational institutions, private foun- 
dations or other institutions, with private firms and individuals whose training 
experience, and qualifications are, in his judgment, adequate for the conduct of 
water research projects, and with local, State, and Federal Government agencies, 
to undertake research into any aspects of water problems related to the mission 
of the Department of the Interior which he may deem desirable and which are 
not otherwise being studied. 

Subsection (b) provided that all contracts must be submitted to Con- 
gress 60 days prior to being entered into. The provision allowing the 
House and Senate Interior Committees to disapprove contracts was 
deleted. 

The committee said, 'The committee is now of the opinion that the 
title II program is needed in order to take advantage of all available 
scientific talent and research competence in the water field in resolving 
our Nation's ever-growing water problems." 

Further, the bill repealed the last paragraph of section 104 and 
added section 307 which changed the reporting date of the Secretary 
of the Interior to, on or before March 1 of each year to coincide with 
the beginning of the fiscal year. The report was to contain the disposi- 
tion of moneys appropriated to carry out the Water Resources Re- 
search Act, the results expected to be accomplished through projects 
financed during that year, and findings of those projects completed 
during the preceding year. 

The House considered and passed H.R. 3606, as amended, on March 
30. 1966. 

The Senate reconsidered the measure on April 5, 1966. The text of 
H.R. 3606 was substituted for the text of S. 22 and passed. 

The bill was signed into law on April 19, 1966, to become Public Law 
89-404. 

2. PvbUc Law 92-175 

Senator Bavh introduced S. 2290 of the 90th Congress on August 11. 
1967, titled the "River Basins Research Act of 1967.^ The bill 
amended the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 to designate one 
water research center in each large river basin to conducl research and 
training activities pertaining to the problem of their respective river 
IIS. The research would increase the understanding of the interrela- 
tionships of biological, chemical, and physical components of the river 
basin and provide for its use accordingly. The training aspect of the 
bill would provide able personnel to many industries, municipalities, 
and State and local concerns. Mr. Bayh said in his introductory state- 
ment that: 42 

Many industries, municipalities, and State and local government al units de- 
Blriona of establishing and maintaining adequate facilities to minimize pollution 

of water resources find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to locate ade- 
quately trained personnel whom they can employ for this purpose. The bill pro- 
thal fellowship grants, administered through institutions of higher learn- 
ing offering advanced degrees in the fields associated with water quality control, 
:is well as specialized short term training, should be authorized. 

The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insu- 
lar Affairs where no act ion was taken. 



rial Record, 00th Cong., M scss., vol. 118, pt. 18, p. 22089. 



43 

On February 18, 1969, Senator Bible introduced S. 1051 to amend 
the Water Resources Research Act. The bill authorized the consortium 
of universities in the Washington metropolitan area to receive title I 
grants "to assist in establishing and carrying on the work of a com- 
petent and qualified water resources research institute, center, or 
equivalent agency in the District of Columbia." The bill was referred 
to the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 

Senator Moss introduced S. 3553 on March 5, 1970, during the second 
session of the 91st Congress. The bill was referred to the Senate In- 
terior Committee. 

S. 3553 amended section 100(a) of the Water Resources Research 
Act of 1964 to raise the amount appropriated to each State from $100,- 
000 to $250,000. Also added to section 100(a) was an appropriation ad- 
justment clause to reflect the increase or decrease in Federal employee 
salaries. Second, the bill amended the act to allow research centers to 
collect and disseminate information. 

Hearings 43 wereheld on S. 1051 and S. 3553 on August 28, 1970. 
Testimony was received from the Department of the Interior, the Office 
of Management and Budget, a number of Senators and Congressmen, 
many State research centers, and representatives from State, local, and 
private concerns. 

The Secretary of the Interior, Walter J. Hickel, recommended in a 
communication 44 to the committee dated July 17, 1970, that S. 1051 be 
enacted, but S. 3553 not be enacted. The Secretary supported S. 1051 
but agreed with the government of the District of Columbia that the 
provisions of section 2 of the bill should be deleted. Section 2 author- 
ized the consortium of universities of the Washington metropolitan 
area to act as the institute sponsor. The Secretary and the District of 
Columbia Government felt that designation of the institute sponsor 
should remain consistent with the policy of the Water Resources Re- 
search Act in that the land-grant college be the recipient of the pro- 
gram. In this case, Federal City College would receive the funds. 

Secretary Hickel justified the deletion of section 2 by saying: 45 

* * *it would not be appropriate to single out the District of Columbia as the 
one jurisdiction in which the land-grant institution designated by the jurisdiction 
did not administer the institute. The Federal City College would, of course under 
the present terms of section 100(a) of the Act, be authorized to arrange with other 
colleges and universities within the jurisdiction to participate in the work of the 
institutue. In this way, Federal City College could utilize the resources of the 
Consortium * * * 

Carl L. Klein, Assistant Secretary, Water Quality and Research, 
Department of the Interior also recommended the passage of S. 1051 
with the deletion of section 2. He did not recommend passage of S. 
3553 due to the lack of supervision over section 100(a) appropriations. 
He said : 46 

In only one instance does this cardinal rule of supervision as to direction and 
utilization of taxpayer's funds go unheeded in the law. The funding provisions of 
title I, section 100, provide no effective guidance, criteria, or direction. Wo are 
without proper legislative authority to guide use of these funds into a compre- 
hensive program or programs. 

Therefore, we feel that the authorization for funding under title I. section 100 
of the Water Resources Act should remain at the present level. If any Stato 



43 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. "Water Resources 
Research," hearings on S. lOol and S. 3553, 91st Cong., 1st sess., Aug. 28. 1070. 
" Ibid., pp. 2-3. 
45 Ibid., p. 3. 
10 Ibid., p. G. 



44 

university has a research proposal which cannot be accomplished within the 
annual allotment of $100,000. it should endeavor to £et approval and funding 
under the other portions of the Water Resources Act, the Federal Water Pollu- 
tion Control Act, or other Federal programs. 

However, these views of the two bills constituted the minority. The 
majority supported the proposals using the record of achievements of 

the Water Resources Research Act as proof that both the extension 
of the act to the District of Columbia and the increase of section 
100(a) appropriations would be extremely beneficial to the needs of 
water research. 

The report of the committee was printed on August 28, 1970. 47 
The bill was amended twice. First, the increase in authorization bi- 
section 100(a) was reduced $50,000. Section 1 of the bill now read : 

* * * section 100(a) of the Water Resources Act of 1904 (78 Stat SL , !>: 42 
D.S.C. 1961a), is amended (A) by striking out "$100,000" and inserting in lieu 
thereof "$200,000". 

During the hearings, it was revealed that the proposed increase of 
>,000 could be divided as follows: 

(1) $50,000 for inflation compensation ; 

(2) $50,000 for information dissemination activities at research 
centers ; 

(3) $50,000 for further research. 

The committee agreed with the first tw T o purposes outlined, but 
heeded the advice of the Secretary of the Interior by deleting the funds 
for additional research. Deliberations followed 4849 and the bill was 
further amended by the addition of section 3 authorizing the District 
of Columbia, and the territories of the Virgin Islands and Guam to 
receive assistance under the act. The committee adopted the Secretary 
of Interior's recommendation that the selection of the institution to 
receive the grant be left to the District as it was previously left to each 
State. 

The measure was sent to the House Committee on Interior and 
[nsular A Hairs but no further action was taken. 

On January 25. 1971, Mr. Hansen introduced S. 121 of the 02d 
Congress. The bill included provisions to increase the amount au- 
thorized to be appropriated under section 100(a) of the Water Re- 
sources Research Act of 1964 from $100,000 to s . and to 
make allowances for information dissemination activities at research 
centers. S. 121 was referred to the Senate Committee on Interior 
and Insular Affairs. 

The follow ing day. Senator Mo luced S. 210 of the 92d Con- 

. Identical to S. 3553 of the 91s1 Congress, as reported, S. 219 
orized an Increase in section 100(a) appropriations from $100,- 
(H)n to $200,000. Second, it contained provisions for information dis- 
semination activities at water research centers. Finally the bill 
tended covei the Water Resources Research Act of L964 to 

the Disl of Columbia, and the territories of the Virgin Islands 
and Guam. S. 219 was also referred to the Senate Int. immittee. 

rii - of four bills were introduced in the House. On January 22, 
-iiinii Johnson of California introduced ELR. 1400 
of the 92d Congress. The bill included similar provisions to S. 3553 



pt. 93 1153, 01st Cong., 2d mm.. 1070. 

« M.M . p 8 

* [bid., p. ."• 



45 

of the 91st Congress as introduced. It proposed to raise the amount 
of section 100(a) appropriations from $100,000 to $250,000 with a 
provision for increasing or decreasing the amount in accordance with 
a suitable formula determined by the Secretary of the Interior to 
reflect the average increase or decrease adjustments in Federal em- 
ployee salaries. It also provided for information dissemination activi- 
ties at research institutions. Similar bills were H.R. 3835, introduced 
by Congressman Morse; and H.R. 6403. introduced by Congressman 
Thone. The fourth bill was H.R. 7293 introduced by Congressman 
McClure on April 6, 1971, H.E. 7293 was similar to S. 3003 of the 
91st Congress as amended. It provided for an increase in section 
100(a) appropriations from $100,000 to $200,000 without the adjust- 
ment clause, made provisions for information dissemination activities 
at water research centers, and extended the terms of the act to the 
District of Columbia, and the territories of the Virgin Islands and 
Guam. All four bills were referred to the House Committee on Inte- 
rior and Insular Affairs. 

Hearings 50 were scheduled bv the House Interior Committee on 
June 29. 1971, to consider H.R. 1400, H.R. 3835, H.R. G403. and H.R. 
7293. 

The preceding day, the committee received a communication 51 from 
Hollis M. Dole, Assistant Secretary of the Interior, presenting the 
Department's opinion and suggesting a number of amendments. Due 
to the lack of time for consideration of these amendments, very few 
comments were directed toward them during the hearings. 

Assistant Secretary Dole recommended the passage of H.R. 7293. 
The Department felt the authorization of $200,000 was justified due to 
the erosion of purchasing power of the dollar by inflation. Further, the 
bill was supported because of the absence of the clause for the adjust- 
ment of the maximum authorization of section 100(a) to reflect 
changes in the cost of research and training programs. The Depart- 
ment felt there was no reliable formula to determine such increases 
and decreases. If any revaluation of the appropriation was necessary 
it could be done through amending legislation. 

Along with the inclusion of the District of Columbia, the Virgin 
Islands, and Guam under the definition of "State," the Department 
favored, in addition, the inclusion of American Samoa. It recom- 
mended that the funding program for all four begin at $50,000 for 
fiscal year 1973. be increased to $100,000 for fiscal year 1974. and to 
not more than $150,000 for fiscal year 1975. It was felt that the four 
institutions which were to receive the authorizations were relatively 
small with few water experts on their staffs. 

The Department recommended that the research programs sub- 
mitted by each State should be developed in consultation with leading 
water' resources officials and agencies to assure that State institute pro- 
grams would contribute to the solution of important water-related 
problems. It recomended that the following be added to section 2 of 
H.R. 7293 : r2 

The annual procrrnms submitted by the S^ate institutes to the Secretary for 
approval shall include assurano." sa*'sfa<-tory to the Secretary that such pro- 



M r.S. Contrrp^s. Hou«o Comm1f f oe on Tntrrlor and Tn^nlar Affair*. Wnior R.^ourro* 
Resoarrh Act Aniendmonts, lioarines on H.R. 1400 and rolatod hills 92d Cone 1<t ro^ 
Jnnp '?n 1071 

Thid., pp. 3-5. 

5 - Ibid., p. 4. 



46 

grams were developed in close consultation and collaboration with the leading 
water resources officials within the State to promote research training and 
other work meeting the needs of the State. 

The following four amendments were taken directly from Assistant 
Secretary Dole's communication. These amendments were designed to 
improve the administration of water resources research and training : 

Sec. 4. Section 102 of the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 is amended 
by adding a sentence after the first sentence to read as follows : "Funds received 
by an institute pursuant to such payment may be used for any allowable costs as 
defined and permitted by the Federal Procurement Regulations. Provided, That 
the direct costs of the programs of each State institute, as distinguished from 
indirect costs, are not less than the amount of the Federal funds made available 
to such State institute pursuant to said section of this Act." 

While retaining in full the cooperative Federal-State concept and nature 
of the section 100 program, this amendment would simplify the fiscal book- 
keeping responsibilities of the state university institutes since they would not 
need to be concerned with segregating program costs, as they are now required 
to do, to assure that Federal funds are not used for employee benefits or indirect 
costs. For the same reason, the amendment would simplify the preparation of 
program and project proposal budgets and improve program management gen- 
erally, including some reduction in record preparation and recordkeeping costs. 

Sec 5. Section 200(b) of the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 is amended 
to read as follows: "(b) In addition to other requirements of the Act, the Secre- 
tary's annual report to the President and Congress as required by section 30S 
of this Act, shall specifically identify each contract and grant award approved 
under subsection (a) of this section in the preceding fiscal year, including the 
title of each research project, name of performing organization, and the amount 
of each grant or contract." 

This amendment would facilitate and expedite title II research program 
management and execution by deleting the requirement that proposed title II 
contracts and grants must be submitted to the Congress for 60 days prior to final 
execution of the contract and grant documents. The Office of Water Resources 
Research believes that it can keep the Congress fully informed of the title II 
programs in a satisfactory manner without continuing the present procedure 
and the additional delay and paperwork involved. The proposed revised language 
would assure that congressional committees and Members of Congress were 
informed annually as to the specific application of title II funds. (Note that if 
the following amendment is not accepted, the reference to section 308 in proposed 
section 5 would be to section 307 instead.) 

Sec. 0. Sections 303 through 307 of the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 
arc renumbered sections 304 through 308, respectively, and the following is 
Inserted after section 302: 

"Section 303. The Secretary is authorized to acquire Federal excess personal 
property in accordance with and as defined by Federal Property Management 
Regulations that will effectively contribute to the exercise of authority granted 
by this Act, and to dispose of such property in accordance with Federal Property 
Management Regulations or in a manner similar to that authorized by section 2 
of Public Law 85-984." 

This amendment would simplify recordkeeping relating to Federal excess 
personal property acquired in furtherance of the purposes and objectives of the 

A't and when adequate and satisfactory justification is provided, it will permit 

the transfer of title to such property to academic and nonprofit research founda- 
tions where it Is shown that such property will have continuing value in water 
research and related training activities of the grantee organization. 
Sic t. Section 307 [renumbered 308] of the Water Resources Research Act of 

Is amend* d by Striking out the word "calendar" and Inserting in lieu thereof 
t he word "fiscal". 

This would out the Secretary's annual report to the President and Congress 
on a fiscal rather than a calendar year basis. The annual report would be Im- 
proved Since it would he related directly to research grants and contracts and to 

other program activities that arc funded on a fiscal year basis. The present 
"calendar pear" repoii makes it necessary to provide fiscal and program accom- 
pli hmeni Information for two fiscal years, one of winch i^ completed and the 
ether in progrei i, thus making the report more complex and less understandable 
and accurate. 



47 

Many statements were made and received supporting the increase 
in authorization to $250,000. The statement of Representative Harold 
T. (Bizz) Johnson illustrates the reasoning behind the increase. 53 

Despite the good work that has been going forward in the institutes and under 
their auspices, they are limited in maintaining themselves due to the declining 
value of the dollar. Today it takes almost twice as much money to fund a given 
level of research as it did seven or eight years ago when the original legislation 
was being considered for the Congress. For this reason and for the added reason 
that further inflation is clearly indicated, we should move promptly to re-scale 
the institute's allotment at $250,000. 

H.R. 1400 was marked up by the committee to include amendments 
suggested by the Department of the Interior. The amended legislation 
was reintroduced as H.R. 10203 to obtain a clean bill. 

House Report 92-463 54 was issued on August 5, 1971. 

The reported legislation now authorized $250,000 for each water re- 
sources research institute. Through testimony, the committee found 
this authorization was badly needed especially if scientific information 
dissemination was to be carried out effectively. It also authorized 
limited funding for the newly authorized institutes of the District of 
Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. American Samoa was not 
included. 

Section 2 of the bill included language for scientific information 
dissemination activities at water research institutes. The committee be- 
lieved this should be included to stimulate a more effective effort in 
information dissemination. Section 3 required proof to be included in 
the annual report by each State to the Secretary of the Interior that 
the development of annual State programs was made in consultation 
with water resources officials and agencies. Section 4 provided for the 
simplification of accounting procedures as suggested by the Depart- 
ment of the Interior. Section 5 required that the annual report of the 
Secretary of the Interior to the President and Congress include certain 
information specifically identifying all grants awarded pursuant to 
the provisions of title II of the act, Section 6 provided authority for 
the establishment of water resources research institutes in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam. American Samoa 
was excluded because the committee felt the recipient institution was 
unqualified at that time. The committee did say it would consider the 
addition of American Samoa at a later date when prospects for effec- 
tive research administration had improved. Section 7 changed the re- 
porting date of the Secretary of the Interior to the President and 
Congress to a fiscal year basis rather than a calendar vear basis. Sec- 
tion 8 added language to the Act which would permit the Secretary of 
the Interior to convey property acquired from excess personal prop- 
erty lists to qualified entities with or without compensation. 

Using approximately the same format as Congressman Johnson, 
Senator Hansen introduced his second bill to amend the Water Re- 
sources Research Act of 1964, as amended, S. 2428. The bill differed 
from H.R. 10203 in that it provided for the inclusion of American 
Samoa m addition to the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands and 
Guam. It also proposed initial funding levels for them to be as the 



■ Tbid,, p. 6. 

"U.S. Congress, H. Rent. 02-463, 92d Conp.. 1st Bess., 1971 



48 

Secretary of the Interior suggested. The Senate bill provided for a 
three-step increase appropriating $50,000 for fiscal year 1973, $100,000 
for fiscal year 1974, and $150,000 for fiscal year L975, whereas the 
House bill proposed a two-step increase from $125,000 for the first 
vear appropriations to $2< H u N >0 for the second. 

Hearings 55 were held on S. 121, S. 219, and S. 2428 on October 13, 
1971. Comments were received from the Department of the Interior, 
Senators, and a number of State and local concerns. 

In its report, the Department of the Interior recommended the pas- 
1:28 with a suggested amendment. The Department felt 
that the problems facing water research institutes only warranted an 
increase to $200,000 and recommended that it be amended as such. 

Others testified in support of the larger increase basing it on the 
need created by inflation, the volume of worthy research projects, and 
the assumption of duties relating to information dissemination by the 
arch institutes. 

On November 10. 1971, the Senate Committee on Interior and In- 
sular Affairs ordered printing of Senate Report 92-438. 56 The com- 
mittee recommended that H.R. 10203 be passed by the Senate. 57 

I committee justified the increase in section 100(a) appropria- 
tions from $101 !,< X 10 to $250,000 on the following basis : 

( 1 ) $51 1,1 >< N > for inflation compensation : 

( 2) $50,000 for information dissemination activities; 

(3) £50,000 to reinforce the program and recognize the in- 
creased complexity and sophistication of water resources research. 

The Senate considered H.R. 10203 on November 22, 1971. 58 Senator 
Mo-s commented on the bill strongly urging its passage. The legisla- 
tion was read a third time and passed. 

The bill was presented to the President on November '29, 1071 r, ° and 
signed into law as Public Law 92-175 on December 7. 1071. co 

-;. S. 1301 

A 1075 proposal to amend the "Water Resources Research Act of 
1964, is S. 1301. Introduced by request on March 21 (legislative day, 
March 12.) 1075, S. L301 is designed to ''promote a more comprehen- 
sive national program of water resources research and technology de- 
velopment and to reorganize certain functions in the Department of 
1 he Interior." 

In a communication received by Congress on March 10, 1975, 61 the 
Department of the Interior submitted and recommended the draft 
at ion for S. 1301. The bill provides for an expanded technology 
development program encompassing water-related research and de- 
salting technology development. Additionally, authorization is pro- 
vided to pursue water-related resea rch to the stage where such findings 
and determinat ions can be used for practical applical ion in solving the 
\ai ion*.- water problems. 

Pr< ■ i administer the program is the ( )ffice of Water Research 

and Technology which combines the fund ions of the Water Resources 



< "'.iMMii' !<■!• on rnterJnr und rnmilir Affair*, fa*«»r Resources 
i:.-, ; ,r!i henrlnffi on R. 123 8. 21*. and 8. 2428 02d C 107J 

• fi B2<1 Cone I I 1871. 

I Record, rol. 1 1 7, pt. "'". p. "• 1771. 
ilonnl Record, rot 117, j>t. 88, p. 42573. 
■ n,i,i.. p. 48187. 

■ ff. ( pt. 34. n r.m ■ 
« CongreMlonal Record, 94th Cong., 1st ieie.,Tol, 121, No. is, p. 4S90. 



49 

Research Act of 196-1 (Public Law 88-379) , as amended and the Saline 
Water Conversion Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-60) . 

S. 1301 amends the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, as 
amended, in three ways. First, the legislation proposes to change the 
date of submittal of water research institute annual reports to the Sec- 
retary of the Interior on the accomplishments and status of water 
research projects from September to December of each year. The bill 
also amends the deadline for the evaluation of these reports by the 
Secretar} 7 of the Interior to ascertain whether the requirements of sec- 
tion 102 have been met by each State, whether each State is entitled to 
its section 100(a) authorization, and the amount of the grant each 
individual State will receive, from July to October of each year. 

Second, title II of the act is proposed to be deleted substituting a new 
title II. The new title II program greatly expands the duties of the 
Secretary of the Interior in this area. Section 200(a) restates the Sec- 
retary's duties as authorized by the present title II. Section 200(b), 
further authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to : 

* * * conduct a water resources technology development program which pur- 
sues research results through the development of effective structural or non- 
structural techniques, methods, procedures, and equipment, and through testing, 
evaluation, and demonstration, to a point where such results can be adopted for 
practical application to problems of national interest. 

The Secretary would cooperate fully with the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency to insure that the water resources 
research and technology development programs performed under the 
act would make the fullest possible contribution to the improvement of 
water resources processes and techniques. Further, due consideration 
would be given to priority problems identified by water and land re- 
sources planning, data acquisition, and like studies conducted by other 
agencies and organizations. Both the Secretary of the Interior and 
the Administrator of EPA would be responsible for preventing dupli- 
cation of effort in water research and technology development by close 
scrutiny and comparison of all proposed projects. 

Section 201 authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to sponsor and 
participate in conferences relating to water resources research and 
development; give advice to local. State, Federal, and other agencies 
and organizations in solving water problems ; correlate and coordinate 
any research deemed suitable by this legislation; and engage, by com- 
petitive contract or otherwise, personnel, educational facilities and 
institutions. Government agencies, scientific organizations, private 
firms or individuals. 

Further, the Secretary is authorized to develop and implement tech- 
nology transfer methodologies for the practical application of research 
and development results and conclusions. He may establish and operate 
facilities as necessary to carry on research and development programs 
and maintain awareness through on-site inspection of promising proj- 
ects and facilities. The Secretary is also authorized to acquire processes, 
technical data, inventions, patent applications, patents, licenses, land 
and interest in land, water rights, research and development equip- 
ment, facilities, and other property by purchase, license, lease or dona- 
tion. He is able to accept financial aid and other assistance from local. 
State, Federal, and other agencies in connection with studies and sur- 
veys relating to water problems while being authorized to purchase. 



50 

license, lease or receive by donation processes, technical data, inven- 
tions, patents, licenses, land and water rights, equipment, and facili- 
ties for research and development programs. To accomplish the pur- 
poses and provisions of this title, section 202 authorizes such funds as 
may be specified in annual appropriation acts. 

Finally, title III is amended to broaden the Secretary of the In- 
terior's responsibility to make information gained from research by 
all Federal and non-Federal agencies, private institutions, and in- 
dividuals generally available in forms of abstracts, summary-type 
information, and project reports concerning water-related research 
accomplishments. 

Miscellaneous amendments are: 

(1) to follow the word "research" with "and technology and 
development'' in section 301. 

(2) to delete section 303 and substitute "Sec. 3 The Saline 
Water Conversion Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-60) is hereby 
repealed." 

S. 1301 has been referred to the Senate Committee on Interior and 
Insular Affairs where no action has been taken pending hearings 
(December 1975). 



IV. An Assessment of Ten Years of Performance of the Office 
of Water Resources Research 

The performance of the Office of Water Resources Research is re- 
viewed herein from its inception in 1964 until it was reorganized into 
the Office of Water Research and Technology in 1974. 

A. ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION 

1. Office of Water Resources Research 

In July 1964, Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall established 
the Office of Water Resources Research to assist him in administering 
Public Law 88-379. The office was headed by a Director and had three 
principal administrative subdivisions as shown on figure 1. A descrip- 
tion of these follows : 



OIVRR Advisory Panel 
and Consultants 



OKRR DIRECTORATE OFFICES 

Director 

Associate Director 
Secretary 
Secretary 



Water Resources 
Scientific Information Center 



Center Manager 
Asst. Center Manager 
Scientific Info. Spec. 
Computer Sys. Analyst 
Tech. Pub. Writer-Editor 

i 

(Secretaries (2) 



Positions Authorized 
Ceiling ------- 

On Board - 6/74 - - - 



Scientific-Technical 
Research Program Management 



(Regional Monitors) 
Research Scientists (10) 



(Secretarial Support) 
Secretaries (6) 





1 






Offic 


Operations Staff 
1 xecul i vv Ofj 


icer 


Executive Officer 
Asst. to Ex. Ofcr. 
Spcl. Asst. to Ex. Of 
Tech. Info. Assistant 
; ecretary 


r. 





Contracts i, Grants 

Cont. 5 Grants Ofcr. 

-| Contracts Specialist 

Contracts .Assistant 

Grants Manag. Asst. 

Secretary 

CI cri.- Typist 






Program Anal. Ofcr. 
MgiTit. Technician 



Administrative Scrvi( 

Asst. to Ex. Ofcr. 
Admin. Asst. 
Ofc. Services Asst. 
Mail t, File Clerk 



Figure 1.— Staffing chart (OWRR) as of June 1974. 

Office of the Director. — The Director's office is responsible for pro- 
grams relating to the administration of the Water Resources Research 
Act of 1964, including: (a) encouraging, sponsoring, providing for 
and supplementing programs for research, investigation, experiment, 
and training of scientists; (b) prescribing policies, procedures, and 



(51) 



regulations, furnishing advice and assistance, and coordinating re- 
search initiated under the act; (c) improving communications among 
individuals and organizations engaged in federally sponsored water- 
related research programs; and (d) obtaining the advice and coopera- 
tion of other agencies of the Federal Government, of Stale- and local 
governments, and of public and private institutions and individuals 
- to contribute to a national program of water and related re- 
sources research. 

Cot ^. — Consultants have been used periodically pre- 

pare state-of-the-art reports; (/>) review research propose 
evaluate OWRE program progress, including recommendations for 
strengthening and improving the program; (//) develop methodology 
providing for improved utilization of research results; and (e) a 
in other tasks wherein expert competence is not readily available 
within the OWKK stall' or from other Government sources. 

Scientific-technical research management staff, — The scientific 
technical research management stall' assists the OWRR directorate by 
participation in the planning, development, execution, and manage- 
ment of water research and training programs authorized by the act, 
including: (a) developing program objectives and goals ; (b) consult- 
ing with and advising OWRR program participants and others on 
scientific-technical writer research matters; (c) managing scientific- 
technical aspects of OWRR research activities; (d) keeping abreast of 
state-of-the-art developments; (e) evaluating research proposals for 
technical merit and relevancy to important water problems; (/) rec- 
ommending proposals for OWBE approval; (g) carrying out onsite 
inspections of OTv'RR programs and recommending actions to achieve 
improved research results: and (J>) maintaining liaison with, sciei 
and professional organizations with special emphasis upon the avoid- 
anc( of undesirable duplication of research effort and the integration 
of areas of interest to OWRR with those of other agencies. 

Operation* *f<ij}\ — The operations staff provide ance and ad- 

vice to the OWRR Directorate by participation in planning, develop- 
ing, and executing the nontechnical operating and administrative man- 
agement phases of the water research and training programs author- 
ized by \\\(> act, including OWRR responsibility for: (a) research 
proposal, grant, and coni ract management programs ; (b) man agem ent 
information systems relative to all phases and aspects of OWIJKV 
research programs and related activities; (c) OAYlvTJ programing 
activities; (rf) budgetary and fiscal matters; (e) fisoal-budgetary- 
staffing aspects of the planning-programing-budgetary svstem; (/) 
procuremenl and property management activities; (g) office services 
and related housekeeping functions; (//) development of operating 
guidelines and documents relative to the needs of potential and exist- 
ing OWKR grantees and contractors; (7) management of research 
report documenl handling activities ; and ()) other and related operat- 
ing and administrative management activities exclusive of those in- 
volving scienl ific-technical consider:) ( ion-. 

iter Resources Scientific Information Center,— The Water Re 
sources Scientific Information ('enter (WRKK 1 ) develops and op- 



53 

crates systems to insure prompt and adequate dissemination of informa- 
tion to interested individuals and organizations. Specific functions in- 
clude : (a) making document announcement services available; (b) 
developing and maintaining an information base of water resources 
abstracts sufficiently comprehensive to provide for effective retro- 
spective searching; and (c) determining whether installed systems are 
fully effective in meeting user needs; prescribing systems changes to 
better meet such needs; and conducting user population studies to in- 
sure adequate and appropriate systems coverage. 

2. Water Resources Research Advisory Panel 

The rules and regulations pursuant to the Water Resources Research 
Act of 1964 specify that the Director include in his annual report ''ad- 
vice relative to the overall programs secured by the Director from a 
special panel constituted by the Director for that purpose, which panel 
shall be composed of outstanding scientists, engineers, and laymen 
experienced in public affairs related to water resources.'- The first 
panel report appeared in 1966. Subsequent panels have provided valu- 
able guidance and constructive recommendations. 

Issues considered by the panels have included: funding levels, the 
mix of basic and applied research, interdisciplinary research, public 
understanding, OWRR-State institute relationships, coordination with 
the Committee on Water Resources Research, research application, 
technology transfer, WRSIC, setting research priorities, researcher- 
user relationships, problem identification, postaudit of research pro- 
jects, state-of-the-art reports, definition of goals, training, and focus 
for future efforts related to saline water research and development 
activities. 

B. A BRIEF HISTORY 

In fiscal year 1965, the Public Law 88-379 program became opera- 
tional when each State and Puerto Rico formulated an approved pro- 
gram. The Office of Water Resources Research began its efforts at 
research coordination and invited universities other than the State 
institutes to participate in its research programs. The importance of 
considering the complex of the total environment including physical, 
biological, human and other aspects related to water resources was 
recognized. 

By the end of fiscal year 1966, some research had been completed 
and put to use : A Xcw York State statute clarifying the law as to 
private rights resulted from research at the Cornell Institute and a 
Florida study aided the city of Arcadia in developing its water sup- 
ply. Over 1,100 students representing 47 disciplines were participating 
in the program and ties with State and Federal agencies began to 
appear as institutes established advisory panels. 

Increasing involvement of the institutes in public affairs was noted 
in fiscal year 1967. Other features spawned that year included en- 
couragement of interdisciplinary water resources research and acceler- 
ated efforts to attract researchers in the social sciences to become active 
participants in the program. 

During 1968 and 1969 research on planning methodologies was 



54 

emphasized and results obtained in the early allotment projects started 
to serve as the basis for attracting other sources of funds. A greater 
evidence of involvement in public affairs was noted and student train- 
ees increased to near the 2.000 mark. 

In the early 1970's greater emphasis was placed on multidisciplinary 
and interdisciplinary research. The Water Resources Scientific In- 
formation Center was established and technology transfer was rec- 
ognized as an essential feature of the application-oriented research 
program. 

During fiscal years 1972 and 1973. the requirement that the States 
develop their programs in association with leading water officials 
took hold and a new era of cooperation and coordination was born. 
Regional research groups were formed and systems for identifica- 
tion, analysis, and prioritization of research were set in motion. 
Technology transfer programs were established and put in opera- 
tion and a greater involvement of research users in the research plan- 
ning processes of the institutes was noted. 

On July 26, 1974. OWRR was merged with OSW to form a new 
Office of Water Research and Technology. Operational features of 
the new organization are unfolding and development is receiving in- 
creased attention as a feature of the program. 

c. BUDGET 

1. Office of Water Resources Research 

Authorized funding levels provided by the Water Resources Re- 
search Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-379) have undergone several 
changes as reflected in amendments embodied in Public Law 89-404 
and Public Law 92-175. 

Title U section 100. — Section 100 provides for funding an annual 
allotment program to State institutes. In 1971, the annual level was 
increased from S100.000 to S250.000 on the basis of a careful assess- 
ment of the success of the program and a congressional determination 
that the orginal authorized level of appropriations was inadequate 
to effectively support the objectives of the act. Provisions were also 
made for establishing institutes in the District of Columbia, Guam, 
and the Virgin Islands. Puerto Rico was included in the initial b'iris- 
lation. The authorization for funding provided for by Public Law 
92-1 75 reads as follows : 

100. (a) There are .authorized to he appropriated to the Secretary of the 
Interior for the fiscal year loo.") and each subsequent year thereafter sums ade- 
quate to provide $75,000 to each of the several States in the first year, $87,500 \ u 
each of the second and third years, and $25< >,000 each year thereafter to assist 
each participating state in establishing and carrying on the work of a competent 
and qualified water resources research institute, center, or equivalent agency 

i hereinafter referred t<. afl "institute") at one college or university in that 

sta'e, which college or university shall he a college or university established 
ordance with the Act approved July 2, i sti'J (12 Stat. 60S), entitled "An 

Act donating public lands to the several States and territories which may pro- 
vide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts" or some other 
Institution designated by Act of the legislature of tic state concerted : }'r<>vi<h<K 

Thai Hi if there is more than one such college or university in a State. e8tab- 

lished iri accordance with said Act of .inly 2, 1862, funds under this Act shall, 



in the absence of a designation to the contrary by act of the legislature of the 
State, he paid to the one such college or university designated by the Governor 
of the State to receive the same subject to the Secretary's determination that 
such college or university has. or may reasonably be expected to have, the ca- 
pability of doing effective work under this Act; (2) two or more States may 
cooperate in the designation of a single interstate or regional institute, in which 
event the sums assignable to all of the cooperating States shall be paid to such 
institute: and (3) a designated college or university may, as authorized by 
appropriate State authority, arrange with other colleges and universities within 
the State to participate in the work of the institute: Provided further. That for 
fiscal year 1973 not more than $125,000 shall be appropriated for each of the 
District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam, and for fiscal year 1974 
not more than $200,000 shall be appropriated for each of such areas. 

Title I, section 101. — Section 101 provides for matching grants for 
water resources research. The original authorization remains un- 
changed by subsequent amendments. 

Sec. 101. (a) There is further authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary 
of the Interior for the fiscal year 1965 and each subsequent year thereafter sum's 
not in excess of the following: 1965, $1,000,000: 1966, $2,000,000: 1967, $3,000,- 
000: 1968, $4,000,000; and 1969 and each of the succeeding years, $5,000,000. 
Such moneys when appropriated, shall be available to match, on a dollar-for- 
dollar basis, funds made available to institutes by States or other non-Federal 
sources to meet the necessary expenses of specific water resources research 
projects which could not otherwise be undertaken, including the expenses of 
planning and coordinating regional water resources research projects by two or 
more institutes. 

Title II, section 200. — Title II provides competitive research fund- 
ing to educational institutions including but not limited to the State 
institutes, to industry, government agencies, private firms, and others. 
The initial level of appropriations was Si million per year but this 
was modified by Public Law 89-104 to the following : 

Sec. 200. (a) There are authorized to he appropriated to the Secretary of the 
Interior $5,000,000 for the fiscal year 1967; $6,000,000 for the fiscal year 1908; 
$7,000,000 for the fiscal year 1969; $8,000,000 for the fiscal year 1970; $9,000,000 
for the fiscal year 1971 : and $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1972-76, inclu- 
sive, from which appropriations the Secretary may make grants to and finance 
contracts and matching or other arrangements with educational institutions, 
private foundations or other institutions, with private firms and individuals 
whose training, experience, and qualifications are. in his judgment, adequate 
for the conduct of water research projects, and with local. State, and Federal 
Government agencies, to undertake research into any aspects of water problems 
related to the mission of the Department of the Interior which he may deem 
desirable and which are not otherwise being studied. 

(b) No grant shall be made, no contract shall be executed, and no matching 
or other arrangement shall be entered into under subsection (a) of this section 
prior to sixty calendar days from the date the same is submitted to the President 
of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives and said sixty 
calendar days shall not include days on which either the Senate or the House 
of Representatives is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 
three calendar days to a day certain or an adjournment sine die. 

Appropriations fiscal years 1965-76.— -The several programs ad- 
ministered by OWRT have never been funded at the full authorized 
level except for title I, section 100. prior to the time the annual allot- 
ment per State institute wats increased from $100,000 to $250,000. This 
has limited the effectiveness of the program because higher levels of 
quality research could have been initiated if funds had been available. 

Table I shows annual appropriations versus authorizations for title 



66-G09- 



56 

I. sections 100 and 101. and title II from enactment of Public Law 
88-379 through fiscal year 1976. Since fiscal year 1973, appropriations 
for the annual allotment program have been only about 42 percent of 
the authorized level, those for matching grants have been about 60 
percent of the authorized level and title II appropriations have been 
generally less than 40 percent of authorizations. In view of the im- 
portance attached to this program by the Congress in the 1971 amend- 
ments and the strong inflationary trends in the economy, it is some- 
what incongruous that funding levels have remained almost constant 
since fiscal year 1968. Although each State's annual allotment was in- 
creased to $110,000 beginning in fiscal year 1974, this was little more 
than a token. During the same period there was no change in funding 
for section 101 and approximately a $1 million reduction in funding 
for title II. 

TABLE I.- FEDERAL FUNDS APPROPRIATED UNDER PUBLIC LAW 88-379 FROM FISCAL YEAR 1965 THROUGH FISCAL 

YEAR 1976 

[In thousands of dollars] 





Annual allotment 


Matching grants 


Title II 




Authorized 


Appropriated 


Authorized 


Appropriated 


Authorized 


Appropriated 


Fiscal year: 














1965.. 


3,825 


2,985 


1,000 


250 


1,000 . 




1966.. 


4,462 


4,462 


2,000 


1,500 


1,000 . 




1967 


5,100 


4,462 


3,000 


2,000 


5,000 . 




1968. 


5,100 


5,100 


4,000 


3,000 


6,000 


2,000 


1969 


5,100 


5,100 


5,000 


3,000 


7,000 


2,000 


1970 


5,100 


5,100 


5,000 


3,000 


8,000 


2,000 


1971 


5,100 


5,100 


5,000 


3,000 


9,000 


3,500 


1972 


5,100 


5,100 


5,000 


3,000 


10, 000 


4,300 


1973' 


13,125 


5,100 


5,000 


3,000 


10,000 


4,300 


1974 


13,350 


5,640 


5,000 


3,000 


10,000 


3,170 


1975 


13,500 


5,730 


5,000 


3,000 


10,000 


3,170 


1976 


13,500 


5,730 


5,000 


3,000 


10, 000 


3,164 



Authorized level for title I. sec. 100 increased. 



Table IT shows the number of research proposals received by 
OYVRR and the total cost if they had all been funded since fiscal 
year 1 '.»<;<;. Only about 25 percent of the matching dollars requested 
have been available and about If) percent of the dollars sought under 
title II. On the basis of OWRT evaluations, about 55 to 65 percent 
of the matching grant proposals and about 50 percent of the title II 
proposals would he supported i f funds were available. While it is clear 
that every proposal submitted should not be approved, the evidence 
indicates that some worthy research is not being initiated because of 
hick- of funds. 'Idie fact that section 101 proposals require equal non- 
Federal funding implies great care in their design at the State level 

and Supports the thesis that a high percentage of these proposals art 1 
meritorious. It is instruct ive to note that in a national budget planning 
process conducted by the State institutes for fiscal year 1!>77. it was 
forecast that $12,403,000 in State funds could he made available for 
matching under sect ion L01 of the act. This exceeds the current author- 
ized level bv about two and one-half times. 



57 



TABLE II.— MATCHING GRANTS AND TITLE II PROGRAMS 

WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED 

[Dollar amounts in thousands] 



Proposals received 



Amount 
requested 



Amount 
Number appropriated 



Fiscal year 1966: 

Matching grants. 

Title II 

Fiscal year 1967: 

Matching grants. 

Title II 

Fiscal year 1968: 

Matciing grants. 

Title II 

Fiscal year 1969: 

Matching grants. 

Title II 

Fiscal ye3r 1970: 

Matching grants. 

Title II 

Fiscal year 1971: 

Matching grants. 

Title II... 

Fiscal year 1972: 

Matching grants. 

Title II— 

Fiscal year 1973: 

Matching grants. 

Title II 

Fiscal year 1974: 

Matching grants. 

Title II 

Fiscal year 1975: 

Matching grants. 

Title II 

Fiscal year 1976: i 

Matching grants. 

Title II 



$2, 930 
5,968 



150 



225 



$1 500 
2,000 



6,319 
29, 000 


224 

244 


3,000 
2,000 


8,713 
38, 000 


244 
352 


3,000 
2,000 


12,319 
35, 000 


356 
222 


3,000 
2,000 


11,682 
21,000 


319 
222 


3,000 
3,500 


14, 000 
47, 000 


385 
380 


3,000 
4, 300 


11,000 
36, 000 


323 
380 


3,000 
4,300 


12,137 
31,240 


349 
343 


3,000 
3, 170 


12,805 
27,900 


333 
311 


3,000 
3,170 


9,456 
20, 284 


233 
241 .... 


3,000 



i As of Aug. 13, 1975. 

The selection process for matching grants gives some insight to the 
rigorous review which these are subjected to : 1 

Final selection of matching grant research proposals is made by OWRR. How- 
ever, advice and recommendations received from the State directors are given 
careful consideration in this selection process. Most institutes have a formal 
procedure, usually involving advisory committees, by which the most appropriate 
proposals are selected for forwardiDg to OWRR. Each proposal is accompanied 
by a relevancy statement prepared by the director and in many cases a ranking 
of the proposals in the order the institute believes is most appropriate to its 
research program. In the selection of projects by OWRR, regional distribution 
is considered, but the primary factors are the merit of the proposed research and 
development of a compatible research program when submissions from all insti- 
tutes are weighed. 

2. Non-Federal Contributions 

There is no specific mandate for cost-sharing beyond the matching 
requirement of section 101. Nevertheless, substantial non-Federal con- 
tributions have been made (table III). For each Federal dollar, about 
80 cents is contributed by the institutes in the allotment program and 



1 U.S. Department of Interior. Office of Water Resources Research. 1974 Annual Report. 
Washington, D.C. 1974, p. 5. 



58 

about $1.20 in the matching grant program. For each Federal dollar 
provided under title II of the act, about 17 cents has been contributed. 

These are average figures and as the table shows, current amounts are 
higher. As of 1974 the States were contributing more than 100 percent 
of the Federal share of title I although on the basis of appropriations 
levels and legal requirements of the act they were only expected to pro- 
vide about 35 percent. 

TABLE III. -NON-FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PUBLIC LAW 88-379 PROGRAM AS AMENDED 

(In percent) 



Percentage of Federal contribution 

Matching 
Allotment, grants, 
sec. 100 sec. 101 Title II 


Fiscal year: 

1966. 


59 


111 

113 

126 
126 
125 
121 
127 
125 
124 




1967 


67 




1968 


67 


n 


1969 


68 


9 


1970 


74 


17 


197L. 


79 


18 


1972... 


89 


14 


1973 


108 


18 


1974 


109 


n 








Average 


80 


120 


17 



The importance of the water resources research program to the 
States is clear from the documentation of their support. Few, if any, 
other Federal programs can display such a high voluntary level of 
funding participation. 

.'>. Budget Planning by State Institutes 

Rules and regulations of OWRT specify procedures for submitting 
budgets for the allotment program and for individual research proj- 
ects. Budgets must be justified in terms of efficient use of funds but 
there is no formal mechanism to assure a total program planning and 
budgeting process. Such a mechanism has evolved, however, and it 
can be shown that research conducted by most State institutes is 
directed toward critical water problems and that the institutes use 
their review and selection processes to maximize productive and cost- 
effective research. 

The institutes have worked closely with State and Federal water 
agencies and have formulated research programs to complement 
agency missions. They have analyzed national, regional and local 
water problems and Identified knowledge gaps where research is re- 
quired to contribute needed solutions. In 1975, the institutes, through 
their regional associations, began an annual prioritization and budget 
planning process. The product of this first exercise was a series of 
regional research plans and budgets and a national summary. 8 This 

budget planning process is coordinated with OWKT and has the 

potential for becoming an effective mechanism I'm- determining re- 

Bearch priorities and identifying optima! allocations of funds. 
' h Fi <l> vol Expenditun 8 and Forecasts for /«'< search 

In L&72, under contract with the OWKK. a special team of water 
resources specialists assembled by the Universities Council on Water 

'National \ loclatton "f Water Institute i >ir<vt<> r -. Water Resource Problems and 
■ ir 1:177. Raleigh, N.C., Oct. I, L978, \>. ii. 



59 

Kesources (UCOAVR) published a report on "National Water Re- 
search Opportunities". 3 Included therein was an analysis of trends in 
expenditures for water resources research and a suggested 6-year Fed- 
eral water research program budget. It will be useful to review this in 
the context of what has happened to that segment of Federal water re- 
search supported by OWKR. 4 

Trends in Water Resources Research Expenditures, 1965-1970. — 
Total Federal expenditures peaked out in 1968, declined in 1969, and 
increased until 1973. From 1973 to 1975 they have remained somewhat 
static but the gap between equivalent research activities which the 
yearly expenditures would buy, and the research outlay is increasing 
due to inflationary pressures. For fiscal year 1973. the research cost 
index based on 1965 dollars was estimated to be about 0.63. and this 
decreased actual dollar outlay gains over 1965 of about 2.6 to 1 to 
about 1.6 to 1, a substantial reduction. 5 

Table IV and figure 2 give the total Federal outlays for water 
resources and related developments, total Federal outlays for water 
research and outlays for water research supported under the Public 
Law 88-379 program. Since about 1970 there have been increases in 
outlays for water resources development and water resources research, 
but the latter have not kept pace with development expenditures, as 
evidenced by the percentage columns in table IV. Funding of the 
Public Law 88-379 program showed modest gains from 1965 to 1971, 
but has remained fairly constant since that time. In terms of actual 
purchasing power, appropriations for OTTRR have steadily declined 
or barely held their own since about 1968. 

TABLE IV.-TOTAL FEDERAL OUTLAYS FOR WATER RESOURCES AND RELATED DEVELOPMENTS, OUTLAYS FOR 
RESEARCH, AND PERCENTAGE RESEARCH IS OF TOTAL OUTLAYS 

[Dollar amounts in millions] 



Total Federal 

outlays for 

water 

resources 

and related 

developments 



Total Federal 

outlays 

for water 

research 



Total 
outlays 
OWRR 



Percentage 
water 

research is 
of total 
outlays 



Percentage 

of total 

research 

outlay 

provided by 

OWRR 



Fiscal year: 

1965 i $1,567 2 $70. a $3. 5 4.5 7.6 

1966 1,706 87.7 6.4 5.1 7.3 

1967 1,778 116.2 6.9 6.9 5.9 

1968 1,802 124.1 11.1 6.9 8.9 

1969 1,768 114.1 11.2 6.6 9.8 

1970 1,674 120.8 11.3 7.2 9.4 

1971 2,053 136.1 13.2 6.6 9.7 

1972 2,315 165.7 • 14.3 7.1 8.6 

1973 2,493 182.2 14.3 7.3 7.8 

1974 2,540 176.7 13.7 7.0 7.8 

1975* 3, 301 187.6 14.2 5.7 7.6 



1 Budgets for fiscal years, Federal Government finances, 0MB, December 1974 and special analyses 
fiscal years. 

2 Annual reports, Federal Council For Science and Technology. 

3 Annual reports, OWRR. 

* Figures for 1975 are preliminary. 



budgets for 



3 Universities Council on Water Resources. National Water Research Opportunities — 
A Re-tort to the Office of Water Resources Research, I'SIU, Lincoln, Nebr., June 1H72. 
pp. III-l to ITT-7 and IV-1 to IV-25. 

* Federal Council for Science and Technology. Committee on Water Resources Research. 
A 10-Year Program of Federal Water Resources Research. Publication No. 4, Washington, 
D.C.. U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1966. 

•"•Howells. David TT. Water Resources Research -A Review and Critique. In, Energy 
Environment and Water Resources. Proceedings Annual Meeting Universities Council on 
Water Resources. Logun, Utah, July 1!)74. p. 63. 



60 



S Millions 



JDUU 




(a) Total Federal Outlays for 


Water Resources 










and Related Developments and Pollution Control 






3000 










/ > 
// 




2500 








Subfunction 301 ^^ 
Water Resources ^^^ 


1 












and Power ^^r 




2000 








\/ 


t 
/ 

1 




1500 








Subfunction 304 


/ 

/ 
I 












Pollution Control 












and Abatement 




1000 








r-> 


s 




500 








/ 






•^ 








/ 


4* 






i i 


I 


I / I 


1 1 





120 



100 




'69 '70 '71 

Fiscal Years 

1'k.i be 2.— Total annual expenditures for Federal water research, Public Law 
88 879, research, total Federal outlays for water resources development and for 

pollut loo control. 



61 

With appropriations for research being sharply decreased on the 
basis of 1965 dollars, required investments in research and manpower 
training for the Nation are not being met. The role of research in pro- 
viding a professional manpower base to manage the Nation's water 
resources deserves more attention. 

Six-year Federal water research program' budget. — A 6-year Fed- 
eral water research budget was developed by the UCOWR team, using 
1972 as the base year (fig. 2). 6 Percentage increases were projected 
to 1978 (table V). Both figure 3 and Table V w T ere developed in terms 
of percentages above the 1972 base, rather than in dollars. 

Table V displays twelve research area classifications, indicates the 
base year funding for 1972, and projects budgeting for 1974 through 
1978 on a percentage of total research outlay basis. The relative prior- 
ities among the 12 areas were determined by consideration of funding 
levels in the 10-category COWRK system (fig. 4) and through 
evaluation of emerging research needs. The table shows an emphasis 
on areas of water quality, ecological response, human behavior, and 
institutions and water resources planning. 

Percentage 
225 



200 



175 



150 



125 



100 



FY-1972 = 100 220 

200 S 

Recommended 181 ^f 
Increases ^ 



164 ^^ 




148 



Actual Increases 

114 
107 



1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 

Fiscal Years 

Figure 3. — Recommended percentage increases in water research funding based 
on year 1972 with projections to 1978 and actual increases to 1975. 



fl I'niversities Council on Water Resources. National Water Research Opportunities — 
A Report to the Office of Water Resources Research, USDI. Lincoln, Nebr., June 1972, p. 
1 1 1-2. 



21 


1 


1 


1 


1 


16 


14 


13 


11 


10 


10 


10 


9 


8 


8 


7 


7 


8 


8 


8 


15 


15 


16 


17 


18 


13 


15 


16 


17 


18 


10 


12 


13 


14 


15 


15 


14 


13 


13 


12 


7 


6 


6 


5 


5 


3 


3 


3 


3 


3 


2 


2 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


1 


2 


2 



62 



1ABLE V.-A 5-YEAR PROGRAM BUDGET WITH PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION AND PROJECTIONS 
FOR 1974 THROUGH 1978, BY PROBLEM AREAS, WITH 1972 AS THE BASE YEARi 

1972 
Problem area base year 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 

1. Nature of water 1 

2. Watercycle 17 

3. Watersupply 11 

4. Water quantity. 7 

5. Water quality 26 

6. Ecological responses 

7. Human behavior 

8. Water planning 25 

9. Engineering works 7 

10. Resources data... 3 

11. Manpower and facilities 3 2 

12. Information 1 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 

i Based on National Water Research Opportunities, UCOWR, 1972. 

2 1973 is not shown because preliminary budgets were not released at thetime cf writing. The original 10 categories were 
considered in developing that budget, however. 

» Research on manpower and facilities only. Grants and contracts are not included here. Intramural and extramural re- 
search, contract and grant research are distributed over appropriate classes. 

Figure 4. — Water Resources Research Categoric*. 

Described in "Federal Water Resources Research Programs for Fiscal Year 
1070," by the Federal Council for Science and Technology, December 1969 

I. Nature of Water : A-Properties of Water ; B-Aqueous Solutions. 
II. Water Cycle: A-General : B-Precipitation ; C-Snow, Ice. and Frcsr : D- 
Evaporation and Transpiration: E-Streainllow and Runoff; F-Ground- 
water ; G-Water in Soils : II-Lakes : I-Water and Plants : J-Erosion and 
Sedimentation ; K-Chemical Processes ; L-Estnaries. 
III. Water supply Augmentation and Conservation: A-Saline Water Conver- 
sion; B-Water Yield Improvement; C-Use of Water of Impaired 
Quality; D-Conservation in Domestic and Municipal Use; E Conserva- 
tion in Industry; F-Conservation in Agriculture. 
IV. Water Quantity Management and Control : A Control of Wafer on the Sur- 
face; E-Groundwator Management: ('-Effects on Water of Man's Non- 
water Activities ; D-Water&hed Protection. 
Y. Winer Quality Management and Protection : A- Identification of Pollutants : 
j: Sources and Fate of Pollution: ('-Effects of Pollution; D-W;iste 
Treatment Processes: E Ultimate Disposal of Wastes; F-Water Treat- 
ment and Distribution ; G Water Quality Control. 
YI. Water Resources Planning: A Techniques of Planning: B-Evaluation 
Process: c Cost Allocation. Cost Sharing, Pricing, and Repayment; D 
Water Demand; E Water Law ami Institutions; F Nonstructural Alter- 
natives :<) Ecologh Impact of Water Development. 
Ail. Resource Data: A Network Design; E-Data Acquisition; C Evaluation. 

Processing and Publication. 
VIII. Engineering Works: A Structures; B Hydraulics; C Hydraulic Machin- 
ery; D Soil Mechanics; E Rock Mechanics and Geology; F Concrete; 
(J '.Materials : II Rapid Fxcavation; I Fisheries Engineering. 
IX. Manpower. Grants and Facilities: A Education- Extramural; B Educa- 
tion In-houso: C Research Facilities: D Grants, Contracts, and Re- 
h Allotments. 
X. Scientific and Technical Information: A Acquisition and rnMrssinir: B 
rerenceand Retrieval; C Secondary Publication and Distribution; I 1 
Specialized I nforma I ion Center Services; E Translation ; F Prepara- 
tion of Reviews. 
Figure 3 illustrates the recommended C< H WR percentage increase 
in waier research fundingto L978. The figure shows an increase from a 
percentage level of LOO in L972 to a level of 220 in 1978. Justifica- 



63 

tion for this trend, believed to be conservative, was based upon consid- 
eration of: original projections developed by COWRR in 1966; 7 en- 
acted and pending legislation in the water resources field; and total 
Federal outlays for water resources and related developments. The 
curve showing actual percentage increases through 1975 indicates that 
the suggested UCOWR trend is far from being achieved. 

Research cutbacks have occurred at a time when more informed 
decision making is imperative. Accelerated activity in the water qual- 
ity field increases the severity of the problem. 

D. RESEARCH PROGRAM 

Research programs supported under Public Law 88-379 have had 
their focus determined in part by legislative mandate and in part by 
various analyses of water resources issues. Title II research is expected 
to impact on water problems related to the mission of the Department 
of the Interior, while research supported under title I is expected to 
take a more State or regional orientation. The several research pro- 
grams are reviewed in this section along with a discussion of other 
pertinent issues. 

1. Annual Allotment Program (Sec. 100) 

The Federal-State partnership in water resources research is ex- 
emplified by the focus established by section 100 of the 1964 act, as 
amended. This provided for a State institute in each of the 50 States, 
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia, and Guam. 

Although a few universities had water resources centers or institutes 
prior to the passage of Public Law 88-379, this legislation paved the 
way for a national effort in water resources research. By establishing 
an institute in each State, there was initiated a mechanism for co- 
ordination and focus of research on national, regional. State, and local 
issues that is unprecedented (except for the agricultural experiment 
stations) in federally supported research activities. 

The initial thrust of the institutes was somewhat provincial and 
fragmented, but the focus has sharpened and taken direction. The re- 
search product of section 100, title I, is best illustrated by repre- 
sentative examples. Annual summaries of each State's work may 
be found in the yearly reports of OYVRR. The projects are heavily 
application oriented, and findings have been put to use by State and 
Federal agencies, industry, and others. The trend toward acceleration 
of transfer of research results to users has been especially noticeable 
since about 1972. 

It is unlikely that any other federally funded research program 
has- produced such a high level of return for so few dollars invested. 

Land subsidence. — Research conducted by the Texas Water Re- 
sources Institute (A-023 TEX. A-032 TEX) has identified costs as- 
sociated with land subsidence related to withdrawal of ground water. 
in the Houston-Pasadena area. Approximately 3.000 square miles 
have been affected by subsidence of as much as 8 feet since 1913. Re- 
sults of the project were used by the Texas Legislature in creating a 
land subsidence control district to help solve the problem. 



7 Fodornl Council for Rcienee nnd ^ochnolocrv. Coimvlttro on Wator Rosourr-os Kp«oirch. 
A Ten-Year Pr'><rr;i?n of Federal Water Resources Research. Publication No. 4, Wash- 
ington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1966, p. 32. 



64 

Analysis of North Platte River Basin. — The Wyoming Water Re- 
sources Research Institute (A-010, 015, 021 WYO) has developed a 

hydrologic simulation model of the North Platte River Basin to test 
impacts of new developments or changes in water adorations in the 
basin. The model is being used by the Bureau of Reclamation to 
evaluate the feasibility of alternatives such as enlargement of re- 
servoirs and reallocation of space, and the State is using it to evaluate 
the impact of transfers of water rights from agricultural to coal- 
enemy uses. Findings of the study have also been used by citizen 
group- ii: assessing water resources development alternatives at public 
meet i 

Energy waste product slated for water </>'<tl it y control. — Fly ash. 
once considered a waste material in coal power generation, has been 
identified as a useful byproduct for water quality control. The South 
Dakota Institute has found that fly ash embodies constituents which 
can significantly reduce phosphorous concentrations in surface waters 
( A-045-SDAK) . Since a practical method for controlling algal blo- 
oms is to limit a major nutrient such a- phosphorous, the use of 
fly ash by power stations located near surface waters has considerable 
potential. 

Terrace system for water conservation. — A steep backslope terrace 
system with glassed waterways was developed by the Nebraska insti- 
tute to increase water use efficiency and to reduce erosion (A-003- 
NTEB). The system reduces total runoff and sediment loss by as much 
5 percent, when compared with a plowed watershed area. The 
same terrace system with a subsurface tile waterway can reduce run- 
off by as much as 65 percent and sediment content of the runoff water 
by as much as 99 percent. The findings of this research have been 
implemented and actively promoted by State and Federal conserva- 
tionists and county agents. Significant economic and environmental 
benefits have accrued. 

Investigation of the Buffalo National Ri/oer ecosystem. — In Feb- 
ruary 1973 the Arkansas Water Resources ('enter entered into a 
cooperative agreement with the National Park Service to conduct an 
interdisciplinary study of the Buffalo National River's ecosystem 
• A 025-ARK, and A-ie.i-AKK). The results of this project are 
being used by the National Park Service in its management program 
for recreal ion uses of the river. 

Technology <f<c<l(>i><<f for supplemental irrigation of acid clay 
soils.- A single allotment giant of less than $4,000 has returned more 
than the entire Ll-year cost of the Missouri water resources research 
program. Although Missouri is in a region where rainfall generally 
exceeds cropping needs, precipitation in July and August is frequenl ly 
so deficient thai summer crops (principally corn, soybeans, and al- 
falfa) suffer. Low yields during droughts jeopardize farm invest- 
ment-. Research by the Missouri Institute (A 003 MO) explained 
-oil reactions thai prevented past irrigation practices from being 
successful. The study demonstrated that runoff from a single field 
could be adequate for supplemental irrigation of thai Held. Data from 
l ( .>7-_! showed thai the increased returns from applying this research 
by a IVw farmers in two counties was in excess of $250,000. 
Alsea River Watershed Study. The A.lsea River watershed study 
\ 001 ORE, A 007 ORE) has produced valuable findings regard- 



65 

ing effects of road building and stream bank clearing in forested areas. 
Loggers have been guilty of paying little attention to how their prac- 
tices relate to erosion, silting of streams, and loss of fish species. This 
project resulted in formulation of guidelines for the construction 
of logging roads and recognition "that buffer strips of timber must 
be left on stream banks to protect water quality. The recommended 
practices have been adopted by governmental and private timber 
managers in Oregon and have become the general practice in the log- 
ging industry nationally. 

Irrigation of citrus fruit with waste water. — The citrus industry 
has found a solution to its waste problems based on 3 years of tests 
at two central Florida citrus processing plants by the Florida insti- 
tute (A-016-FLA). It was found that using waste water to irrigate 
citrus is a quick and relatively inexpensive way of dispersing waste 
water and of saving million of gallons of fresh water normally used 
for irrigation. 

The Minute Maid Division of Coca Cola is using the system to 
irrigate a 27-acre mature citrus grove at Leesburg, Fla. It is estimated 
that enough waste water is discharged from citrus processing plants 
in central Florida to irrigate 20,000 to 30.000 acres of citrus annually. 

Effects of coal gasification on water quality and quantity. — Inter- 
est in coal gasification as an alternative source of energy is national 
in scale. In Ohio, the Governor's Office gained approval of a bill to 
offer subsidies for construction of a proposed coal gasification plant 
in southeastern Ohio, and a new State entity, the Ohio Energy 
Emergency Commission, was created to promote energy development 
and to establish energy policies for the State. 

The results of Ohio project ( A-041-Ohio) on impacts that coal gasi- 
fication facilities will have on water quality and quantity will be used 
to aid in the .selection of suitable locations for the development of these 
facilities in the State. The general-purpose siting models that were pre- 
pared are applicable to any location in the United States and will be an 
aid to other State and Federal agencies working with these processes. 

Erosion control. — A maior problem in the Rocky Mountain region is 
control of ei'osion along river banks and at structures such as bridge 
abutments. Highway departments have always found it difficult to pro- 
tect foundations at river crossings without building large and ex- 
pensive structures. Project A-002-COL of the Colorado Institute 
studied use of rock cover for erosion control. Engineers developed 
guidelines for the selection and installation of protective rock covers to 
prevent scour around bridge abutments and to reduce costs of const ruc- 
tion. Information obtained lias been incorporated in design manuals for 
the State Highway Department and the Federal Highway Adminis- 
tration. 

Effects of highway suit on water quality. — Loss of roadside trees 
and contamination of wells have resulted from the lavish use of com- 
mon salt on highways. In Maine, the findings of a $50,000 research 
study (A-007-ME) led to alterations in salt spreading techniques. 
W 'hen the degrading effects of road salt became apparent, an examina- 
tion of the method of application revealed that the desired deicing effect 
could still be obtained with as much as a 40-percent reduction in the 
amount of salt used. The spreading of road salt is now monitored by a 
simple, inexpensive metering device. During the first year of use of 



66 

the meters on interstate and State highways, savings of one-half of a 
million dollars were realized. 

Cul/vert design for safe fish passage. — A major concern of en- 
gineers involved in highway design in the Pacific Northwest and 
Alaska is that of placement of culverts in streams in which anadromous 
fish passage may be disrupted. Recognizing that little design informa- 
tion was available upon which to base construction, the Idaho Institute 
initiated a project (A-0-27-IDA) to provide needed data. The U.S. 
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife noted the preliminary results 
of the project and funded additional work in Alaska to evaluate the 
laboratory findings under field conditions. The design manual pro- 
duced by the project is being used by the U.S. Forest Service in its 
regional offices. 
2. MatcMng Grant Program 

The research conducted under section 101 of Public Law 88-379 re- 
quires States to match Federal contributions. This part of the pro- 
gram is designed to focus more directly on regional and national prob- 
lems than is the allotment program, and it is nationally competitive. 
Each State institute may submit as many matching grant applica- 
tions as it desires. These are reviewed by the OWRT staff and are 
normally sent out for two additional reviews by appropriate Federal 
agencies. Once the evaluations are received, a selection is made based 
on importance of the research, quality of the proposal, regional im- 
plication-, and other factors. Within the level of funding available, the 
projects are selected for implementation. While in theory, one 
Stale could receive all of the Federal matching dollars available in a 
given Mar, there is an obvious effort on the part of OWRT to see that 
all State- submitting qualified proposals receive a share of the pie. 
r l 'his does not compromise the efficient use of funds, since the total 
dollars requested far exceed even the authorized funding level. 

A\ "hile allotment projects are usually small in terms of funding (1074 
average annual level of about $8,000), the matching grants average 
about $28,000 Federal, plus about $31,000 non-Federal, for a total of ap- 
proximately $69,000. Most matching grants are for periods of about 
two years and. thus, the average annual level of funding is about 
►00. Because the matching grants are considerably larger than 
most allotment projects, the per project comprehensiveness and produc- 
tivity is usually greater. On the other hand, the smaller allotment 
projects are generally more ctive for initiating idea.-, involv- 

ing new professionals in water research, and testing hypotheses. Re- 
sults of these pilot projects are frequently the basis for more compre- 
hensive matching grant projects or proposals to a variety <>;' Fed xal, 
State, and other agencies. The duality in the program has considerable 
merit in that it provides both a proving ground at minimum cost (al- 
lotment project- > and a vehicle for funding larger-scale projects which 
can effect ively impact on crit ical problems I matching grants). 

Examples of the research product of the $ action L01 program follow 
to illust rate t he diversity of issues addressed and results obtained from 
t hese project . 

water usi for <n'<, ,,'>>< It irrigation. The use of waste water 
to irrigate lire suppressing greenbelts has proven to be an effect ive ap- 
proach to problems <d* water quality improvement and environmental 
enhancement. Several I \S. Forest Service chaparral management plans 
using greenbelt irrigation as a means of waste water recycling and lire 



67 

protection have resulted from California research (B-161-CAL) on 
this topic. Cooperators include the California Department of Water 
Resources, U.S. Forest Service, California Division of Forestry, 
regional quality control boards, and local sanitation districts. 

Urban flood plain management. — The Georgia Center has defined 
urban flooding potential in terms of rainfall, stream flow, and topo- 
graphical information, has evaluated a series of watershed simulation 
models, and has prepared a calculational model considered particularly 
applicable to the Atlanta area (B-082-GA). The model is in use by 
a county agency. Other studies in the same series have described non- 
structural flood-control measures and have presented techniques for 
relative evaluation to permit selection of the most appropriate measure. 
These techniques have been tested and presented to local agencies. 
Several government employees have been trained in their use and a 
survey and analysis of urban drainage ordinances has been published 
for utilization by local agencies in controlling the use of flood plains. 

Groundwater Systems Analysis. — Although the surface waters of 
Idaho are important, the groundwaters are of special concern. In par- 
ticular, the great Snake Plain aquifer is a valuable resource. As a 
critical element in the State water plan — particularly to the south- 
eastern portion of the State — the State planning board quickly realized 
that too little was known about this aquifer to permit proper planning 
and management. Although the areal extent of the Snake Plain aquifer 
was generally known, its hydrologic capacity, the relationship between 
surface water systems and the groundwaters, the recharge and even 
the extent of use was only estimable. Extrapolations to future condi- 
tions could not be confidently made. 

Recognizing this problem, the Idaho Institute developed a ground- 
water system model to provide quantitative information about the im- 
pact of water development in the basin. The Idaho Water Resource 
Board noted the relevance of this work and agreed to fund a study of 
the entire Snake Plain aquifer. This is in progress, with the model 
serving as a major analytical tool. 

Effects of sanitary landfills on water quality. — Indiana legisla- 
tion prohibits the use of open dumps for solid waste disposal. This has 
made it necessary for many communities to select, secure and main- 
tain sanitary landfills. Little consideration is usually given to the 
effects on the hydrology of the affected area, nor to the possibility of 
contamination of the ground and surface water. 

Project B-049-IND studied three selected landfills in southern In- 
diana and recommended criteria for site selection. The State board of 
health is using these as guidelines. 

Public management of freshwater wetlands. — The value of wet- 
lands in fish and wildlife protection was recognized earlier in Massa- 
chusetts than in other states. It became clear, however, that prudent 
public decision on whether a wetland should be preserved or developed, 
and how it should be developed, required a more complete under stand- 
ing than existed of the actual role served by the wetland. Such deci- 
sions required reliable procedures to estimate the value of the resource 
in fish and wildlife preservation, in groundwater recharge and muni- 
cipal water supply, and in flood control. Accordingly, projects (B-012, 
B-023 MASS) were designed to devise a system for classifying wet- 
lands of different types, to determine the impact of man's past ac- 
tivities, and to produce a decisionmaking model to guide public 



68 

officials. These objectives have been realized. The importance of pro- 
tecting wetlands for recharging groundwater supplies has been estab- 
lished for some 60 Massachusetts communities. The study indicated 
that, because of this recharge function, approximately half of Mas- 
sachusetts' wetlands should be valued at not less than $60,000 per 
acre. The role of different types of wetlands in preserving desirable 
forms of aquatic life, birds and animals has been established. A proce- 
dure for estimating the scenic quality of a wetland has been developed. 
Studies of two urban watersheds, the Neponsel and diaries Rivers, 
indicate that, for such streams, wetland Losses of over 25 percent 
are likely to result in significant Mood damage. The research has pro- 
duced the following results: Legislation has been proposed denning 
wetlands in Massachusets, in accordance with the classification system 
evolved in the study; official regulations based on the classification sys- 
tem have been prepared by the Massachusetts Department of Natural 
Resources; guides to local regulatory action are being based on the 
projects' findings; land use maps developed in the course of the work 
are being extensively used by Federal. State, local and private plan- 
ning and land-use agencies; ecologic, economic, hydrogeologic and 
visual-cultural criteria for wetlands evaluation recommended in t he- 
study are being applied to Federal and State water resource and land 
tudies in New England and elsewhere. The wetlands classification 
system, a major contribution, has been published separately and given 
widespread distribution by the U.S. Department of the Interior's Bu- 
reau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. Requests for reports produced 
by this study have been received from all parts of the country, and 
exceed 1,000 in number. 

Unrecorded pollution <<n<l nonpoint sources. — Tn 1969, it was dis- 
covered that, in three New .Jersey rivers, only one-third or less of the 
pollution ( measured in BOD) could be traced to waste t leatment plant 
effluents. Up to that time, wastewater effluents had been considered to 
be the primary source of pollution. Although pollution control 
authorities were initially indifferent or skeptical. OWKT was keenly 
interested and supported several research projects, including A- 
025 NT.J. and B-059-N.J. Agency attitudes have now changed drasti- 
cally. A congressional mandate of 1072. requiring consideral ion of non- 
point pollution sources, is being implemented through area waste- 
water management planning under section 208 of Public Law 92 500. 
Rutgers si tidies of unrecorded sources have been paralleled by research 
elsewhere, in North Carolina. New York, Ohio, and other States. Few 
professionals now question the importance of pollution from nonpoint 
sources and urban and indusl rial runoff. The remaining quest ions now 
are how to measure the extent and character of this pollution without 

inordinate sampling and modeling costs, and how to devise economic 

control measures. r rhe need is urgent, because the EPA is processing 
$150 million in planning grants for section 208 planning, and billions 
of dollars in facilit ies grants, many of which have been planned on an 
inadequate basis and may not be economic. The technology for evalual - 
iiiL r these new pollution source- is -till largely undeveloped, and sam- 
pling methodology is known mainly from methods used in a few re- 
search and demonstration projects. The unpublished results of current 
Rutgers research are being used to guide section 208 planning, which 
has In >en funded for Middlesex County, N.J., and adjacent areas. These 
trch findings can save literally billions of dollars from being mis- 
applied throughout the United States. 



69 

Agricultural water demand in North Carolina. — Agricultural pro- 
duction in North Carolina is highly dependent on adequate moisture 
during critical growing periods. Periodic droughts are commonplace, 
and supplemental irrigation is being increasingly used to make up the 
difference between needed and available water supplies. The ability to 
predict future demand for supplemental irrigation is important to 
water resource planning if water for this purpose is to be provided. 
Project B-068-XC is developing a demand projection methodology 
and was undertaken at the request of State water resource planners. 
The model will estimate water requirements for a given pattern and 
level of agricultural activity and the optimum level of agricultural 
activity which can be sustained with a given water resource. It has 
been successfully tested, and is bein<£ used by USDA's Soil Conserva- 
tion Service, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Economic Research 
Service in the Tar-Xeuse River Basin study, involving a 35-county area. 

Effects of residual toxins in oil refinery effluents on aquatic 
organisms. — In a three-way partnership involving OWRT, the Okla- 
homa State University, and the Oklahoma Refiner's Waste Control 
Council, the Oklahoma Institute (B-025-OKLA) has studied the ef- 
fects of oil refinery waste discharges on the water quality of streams, 
rivers and lakes to which the effluent finds its way. This research was 
not only an attempt to find out what the toxic substances were in oil 
refinery effluent, but was designed to determine just where these toxic 
effluents originate in the refinery and what can be done about them. 
As a result of this project, Oklahoma refineries have been able to 
greatly reduce the toxic effect of their refinery's effluent. The research 
identified each toxic substance and traced it back to its source in the 
refinery. Refineries have thus been able to give special treatment to 
the limited amount of effluent which contains the most highly toxic 
substances or to alter the refining process so as not to produce certain 
refractory toxins. This has allowed the refiners to meet EPA effluent 
standards without plant shut-downs or major modifications. Some 
Oklahoma streams, which at one time were barren of all but rough fish, 
are now producing an abundant and diverse sport fish population, and 
the receiving stream water quality is so improved that it is now usable 
for both industrial and domestic consumption. 

Land disposal of icastewater — the living filter. — In 1962, an in- 
terdisciplinary team of researchers assembled to investigate the feasi- 
bility and environmental impacts of disposal of treated municipal 
wastewater on land through spray irrigation. From these investiga- 
tions, the "living filter'' concept was evolved, which has today become 
synonymous with the idea of spray irrigation of municipal wastewater 
on the land. As a result of the Penn State program, generally regarded 
as the prime motivator for the acceptance of land application as a 
viable methodology, facilities are in construction or operation through- 
out the country, ranging in size from small community, low-volume 
operations to large-scale, regional sites such as the Muskegon, Mich., 
spray-irrigation project, designed to renovate 32 million gallons of 
wastewater per day. 

With continuing support from the Office of Water Research, and 
Technology (B-001-PA; B-054-PA ; B-059-PA; B-083-PA), this 
program has demonstrated the utility of an economical, environment- 
ally sound waste disposal method, and has, in effect, helped to estab- 
lish a national policy on waste 1 management consistent with the con- 
servation ethic. 



70 

Flood risk factor in the design of urban storm drainage systems. — 
Rapid urban development and its modification of landscapes result 
in marked changes in runoff characteristics. Municipal engineers 
and planners have sought meaningful and practical planning and do- 
sign guides for use in deciding the conditions and specifications for 
certain lnad uses and the physical design of drainage and flood control 
structures that may be necessary. Extending of urban areas in Utah 
to foothill areas of greater slope and more undulating topography has 
led to some serious flood problems, not only for the newly developed 
areas, but for areas below which experience a change in the amonnt -. 
timing and routing of flood flows. 

The Utah study (B-04S-UTAH) enjoined the physical and economic 
considerations that bear on the design of storm drainage systems in 
urban areas. The methodology was applied to urbanizing areas in Salt 
Lake County. Close collaboration wa.s established with the city and 
county planning and flood control divisions, as well as with representa- 
tives of the Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service, Corps of En- 
gineers, Utah Geological and Mineralogical Survey, and others. 

Hydrologic models were developed which incorporated topographi- 
cal parameters, intensity, durations and a real distribution of rainfall, 
effective impervious areas, soil and vegetation types, etc. Damage 
frequency curves based on rainfall return period, antecedent soil mois- 
ture, and degree of urbanization were prepared and employed in 
examining specific flood protection possibilities incorporating deten- 
tion basis, channel improvements, lot sizes, land treatment, vie. 

The results and recommendations of this research have been used 
directly by the Salt Lake County Planning Commission and Salt 
Lake City in setting standards and criterion for regulating urban 
growth and in developing hydrologic design guides for engineers to 
use in making engineering economy studies of various proposed 
developments. 

Environmental impact. — One troublesome new problem facing 
electric utility companies is providing comprehensive environmental 
impact statements on proposed new powerplants. The Environmental 
Protection Agency now requires data on thermal discharges — that 
is, how much heated water of what temperature will be discharged 
into nearby streams — and what changes this will cause in ambient 
Si ream temperatures. Such "thermal pollution" can, in excess, cause 
s<rious damage to stream life and can contribute substantially to 
degradation of water quality. Since both conventional fossil-fueled 
and nuclear plants require large quantities of water for cooling pur- 
poses, the problem of projecting environmental impacts conies up 
each time a utility applies to the EPA for a waste-discharge permit. 

Federally funded research through the Virginia Water Resources 
Research Center has developed a mathematical modeling technique 
enabling prediction of temperature changes in a receiving stream over 
a variety of changing conditions. Applied specifically to preparation 
of environmental impact information required for a proposed power- 
plant site, the modeling technique provides electric utilities with a 
valuable tool which meets presenl EPA requirements. The method 
i- all the more timely because, in 1071. when the EPA began imposing 

more stringenl requirements concerning thermal discharge, no such 

method was available. 

Already the modeling technique has been successfully nut to use by 
Appalachian Power Co. in Virginia and Duke Power Company in 



71 

North Carolina. It is estimated that costs to utility companies for 
the expertise, manpower, and technology necessary to develop this 
technique would have been in the area of $500,000 to $1 million. By 
comparison, the actual cost of the universitv-based research was about 
$200,000. 

A substantial share of the funding was provided through two closely 
related matching fund projects (B-042-VA and B-054-VA) at the 
Virginia Water Resources Research Center. These, in concert with 
other State- or utility-backed work on the problem by the same investi- 
gators, produced a valuable took for insuring that meeting the Na- 
tion's increasing energy needs will be done in ways least damaging to 
the environment. And, as an added advantage, the technique is avail- 
able for use by any utility or other industry having a need for it. 

Impact of mining on water quality. — A study of the quality of 
the Coeur D'Alene Lake-Spokane River system has provided docu- 
mentation of past changes in the river-lake system, and has raised 
warning flags for the future. The study area lies downstream from the 
sites of substantial present and future mining activity in the gold- 
and silver-rich hills of northern Idaho. The purpose of the study was 
to examine the effect of heavy metals from the mining operations on 
the biological community within the lake and rivers downstream. 

The research effort was conducted cooperatively by faculty mem- 
bers of Washington State University (B-044-WASH) and the 
University of Idaho. It is particularly significant for two reasons. 
First, the researchers made their results available to decisionmakers 
concerned with improving water quality. The contacts included meet- 
ings with the Spokane City Council, the State of Washington Depart- 
ment of Ecology, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and 
the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as private consulting firms doing 
water quality work in the area. 

A second outstanding aspect of the project was its information 
dissemination activity. Substantial coverage has been given the proj- 
ect in Spokane papers, particularly with reference to EXPO '74. A 
one-half hour television feature of the project activities appeared on 
at least four major stations in eastern Washington and northern Idaho 
A magazine-style version of the completion report, entitled Good 
Water?, written for the lay audience, was published and widely dis- 
tributed. Approximately 10.000 copies of the special report were dis- 
tributed to visitors at EXPO '74. 

3. Title II Research 

Title II of the Water Resources Research Act. as amended, 
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to make grants and to finance 
contracts and matching or other arrangements with educational in- 
stitutions private foundations, or other institutions, with private 
firms and individuals whose training, experience and qualifications 
are. in his judgment, adequate for the conduct of water research 
projects, and with local, State and Federal Government agencies, to 
undertake research into any aspects of water problems related to the 
mission of the Department of the Interior which he may deem desir- 
able and which are not otherwise being studied. 

This section of the act provides for a much broader involvement 
in the research program than provided for by title I. It theoretically 
opens the door to all avenues of competence and additionally calls 
for a specific focus on problems considered especially important to 

66-609 — 76 6 



the Department of the Interior. Funding levels have been small, how- 
ever, with the result that only a fraction of the research submitted 
for consideration has been implemented. 

During the fiscal years 1968 through 1074. 328 projects were funded 
at an average level of *(>f).000. 8 Significant accomplishments have been 
achieved in four problem areas: (1) hydrologic systems analysis; (2) 
water resources management; (3) urban and metropolitan region 
water problems; and (4) environmental research. 

The title II program has encouraged and funded research in the 
development and application of mathematical models in fields includ- 
ing management of groundwater resources; rainfall-runoff relation- 
ships in rural, urban and developing watersheds; regional manage- 
ment of water quality and supply; management of reservoirs, lakes 
and estuaries: optimal use of irrigation water; expansion of water 
distribution systems; and design of efficient storm water drainage 
systems. Newly developed mathematical techniques are becoming part 
of the planning tool complement and are supplementing traditional 
methods for setting water resources planning and management 
strategy. The use of quantitative planning techniques is essential if 
alternatives for achieving jroals and the ability to test the consequences 
of alternate courses of action are to be evaluated in a meaningful 
fashion. Direction of title II funds to support needed research in 
this area appears to be well-founded. 

In addition to a research focus on planning technology. OWKT 
has placed heavy emphasis on research which examines water plan- 
ning and management institutions and the authorities and constraints 
under which they function. The objective is to determine the ability of 
current institutions to adapt to new conditions and. where limitations 
are found, to identify feasible alternatives. Topics which have been 
studied in the management area include: water rights and doctrines; 
user attitudes: water management practices and policies; and prob- 
lems associated with multiple jurisdictions and conflicting objectives 
in metropolitan and regional water resources planning and manage- 
ment. The findings of this research have led to improved mechanisms 
for water resources planning, implementation of plans, and improved 
management effectivness. 

A much neglected area of research, primarily because it has not 
been directly related to the mission of the major water agencies, is 
thai pertaining to urban water problems. Relatively little is known 
about the effects of large urban environments on associated hydrologic 
systems, and even less information is available on the political, eco- 
nomic and social aspects of water use. conservation, development and 

management a- they are affected by the metropolitan complex. Delib- 
erate and systematic Study of metropolitan water problems is neces 
sary if future crises resulting from inadequate management of water 
resources are to be averted. Title II funds have been w^vd to study 
metropolitan water resources planning and management policies, 
metropolitan water supply and distribution systems, urban hydrology, 
(loo. I plain management, metropolitan water quality and waste (lis 
posal, water pricing policies, waterfront restoration, and urban water 
recreation. Publications produced by these title II projects have be- 
come national and international reference sources and are moni- 



i s. Department of [nterlor. Office of Water Resources Research. 1974 Annual Report, 
Washington, D.C., 1974, p 11. 



73 

tored overseas, where they are regarded as indices of U.S. progress 
in urban water development. 

The environmental research segment of title II has been fostered 
to generate knowledge of the ecological consequences of water re- 
source development so that adverse environmental consequences can 
be minimized or avoided. Title II funds have supported research on 
the dispersion of pollutants in rivers, lakes and estuaries; stream 
eutrophication mechanisms; simulation of the eutrophication proc- 
ess; the effects of urban development on the biological processes in 
estuaries; the effects of thermal discharges on estuarine primary pro- 
ductivity: and other related studies. Results of these studies have 
found use in State and Federal regulatory agencies, water resource de- 
velopment agencies, and by local. State and Federal legislative bodies 
concerned with water resource problems. 

The title II program makes it possible to utilize talents which are 
particularly well-suited to the study of special types of water- related 
problems. For example, studies of management, organization and in- 
stitutional administration of water resources can often be carried 
out effectively by private and public organizations that are associated 
with those who administer water supplies, construct and improve 
water facilities, and operate and test equipment employed in water 
programs; industrial competency in systems engineering and analysis 
and computer technology can be utilized in the application of those 
techniques to water resources planning; and research dealing with 
the application of laboratory findings can often be accomplished most 
efficiently by industrial concerns already possessing the skilled staffs 
and know-how required for development work. Some of these com- 
petencies are not directly available through the title I program and, 
thus, the title II research exhibits a complementary element. 

In 1966, the Federal Council for Science and Technology identified 
a series of major categories for water resources research (figure 4). 9 
These are used to classify the studies accomplished under the Public 
Law 88-379 program. Most of the research identified by OWRT as of 
highest priority for title II falls under category VI, with the remain- 
der distributed mostly in categories II, IV and V. 

Figure 5 shows the percentage distribution of research effort of 
title II for the period 1968 through 1974, and for sections 100 and 
101 of title I for the period 1965 through 1974. It is clear that the 
title II program has expended most of its efforts in the categories 
identified by OWRT as critical. The fact that the selection of projects 
is made by OWRT essentially guarantees this. Of interest, however, 
is the fact that title I has heavily impacted on the most pressing 
national priorities. In the case of the matching grants, there is an 
obvious effort on the part of institute directors to solicit as many of 
these according to the guidelines of title II as possible, but the allot- 
ment program — which is often considered to be locally oriented and 
without adequate Federal guidance — exhibits characteristics of 
research direction very similar to those of title II and the sect ion L01 
grants. From the 10 years of record available, it is apparent that the 
overall thrust of the Public Law 88-379 program has focused on impor- 
tant issues and has not been the collection of fragmented and uncoordi- 
nated activities expected by antagonists. 

Federal Council for Science and Technology. Committee on Water Resources Research 
A 10-Vear Program of Federal Water Resources Research. Publication No » Washington 
D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1906, pp. 78 82 



74 




75 

Each year, OWRT has issued a listing of priority research subjects 
for title II. These strongly influence the nature of proposals received 
in this part of the program and while not actually specified as the 
criteria for the title I program, there is an obvious impact on the 
nature of these projects as well. The desire on the part of institute 
directors to maximize the likelihood that their matching grants will 
be selected is bound to make them seriously consider the priority areas 
of research identified by OWRT. 

In 1968, the first year of the title II program, the following priority 
areas were identified : 

(1) Analyses of managerial, financial and regulatory func- 
tions of regional water resources authorities and other institu- 
tional arrangements. 

(2) Treatment of risk and uncertainty in the design of water 
resources systems. 

(3) Coupling of physical-economic models for comprehensive 
river basin planning. 

(4) Research to develop methods for valuing wild rivers versus 
rivers subject to various schemes and degrees of development. 

(5) The management of estuarine resources. 

(6) The impact of varying assessments of costs to beneficiaries 
on demand for recreational use of water. 

(7) Water conservation effectiveness of water rate schedules. 

(8) Case studies of the economics of floodproofing. 

(9) Management for integrating ground- water and surface- 
water use. 

(10) Methodology for forecasting municipal and industrial 
water requirements. 

(11) Alternatives for water supply augmentation. 

The title II research program of the Office of Water Research and 
Technology for fiscal year 1976 is directed primarily toward support 
of the priority objectives of the Department of the Interior listed 
below : 

(1) Improving water resources planning and management. 

(2) Encouraging Indian self-determination and improvement 
in the Quality of life on Indian reservations. 

(3) Solving of energy-related water problems. 

(4) Promotion of water use efficiency. 

(5) Protection of the environment. 

A narrative discussion of these by OWRT follows to illustrate the 
need for the research and the direction it is expected to take. 10 

Improving water resources planning and management. — In the im- 
mediate future, the Nation will be confronted with crucial decisions 
with respect to the planning and utilization of its water resources. Of 
immediate interest to the Department of the Interior are those water 
resources considerations which will affect decisions relating to public 
land energy development programs, multiple use of public land Water- 
sheds, Outer Continental Shelf leasing programs, and water supply 
augmentation technology such as cloud seeding. These activities will 
involve planning and management in a very broad sense, and will 
touch upon social, economic, political and legal issues. 



lo r.S. DomrtP'pnt of the Tnforlnr. Office of Water Research and Technology. 1070 
priority subjects for title II support, Washington, D.C., 1975. 



76 

Research could contribute to the resolution of those problems as- 
sociated with multiple jurisdictions and conflicting objectives in 
regional water resources planning and management. Research goals 
should be to provide a basis for the establishment and adoption of im- 
proved mechanisms for water resources planning, the implementation 
of plans, and the improvement of management effectiveness. 

There exists an extensive accumulation of knowledge in the fields 
of statistic-, mathematical modeling, planning economics, social 
sciences, et cetera, on methods of improving the decisionmaking proc- 
ess. This knowledge needs to be evaluated, demonstrated, and made 
available in a useful form to water resource planners, developers ami 
managers. 

In addition to the need for improved planning and management 
methods and techniques, there is a need for methods for including 
multiple objectives in plans, and for methods for measuring and dis- 
playing the effects of proposed plans on regional development and 
social well-being accounts. Study is needed of methods allocating 
costs among the various functions of multiple-purpose water resource 
projects. Also, research is needed to identify recipients of esthetic, 
amenity and recreation benefits, to establish methods for determining 
attitudes and public preference with respect to competing demands on 
the water resource, and the ability and willingness to pay for such 
benefits. Currently, economic analysis concentrates heavily on engi- 
neering data: no satisfactory way has been developed to introduce 
social, esthetic, cultural and similar costs into the economic analysis. 
Research efforts directed to these problems would be beneficial to 
planners, decisionmakers and resource managers. 

These research goals and objectives are designed to assist the Bureau 
of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Out- 
door Recreation, and other Department of the Interior agencies in 
carrying out their mission responsibilities. 

Encowraging Indian self-determination. — The water resource is a 
significant determinant of the social and economic well-being of much 
of the Indian population of the United States. Water-oriented and 
dependent activities such as forestry, fishing, mining, agriculture and 
tourism are the mainstays of many tribal economies. To obtain con- 
tinuing and improved benefits from such enterprises, it is uecesary 
that the most modern and efficient management and conservation tech- 
niques be brought to bear on the water resource. 

The implementation of appropriate management and conservation 
practices will require a more precise estimate of the quantity and 
duality of the potent ial water supply t han is current ly available. Con- 
flict ing claims to water rights cloud much of the water inventory avail- 
able to [ndian lands. The resolution of these conflicting claims and the 
determination of the nature and extent of [ndian water rights will be 
a major factor in additional social and economic development. 

In addition, methods and procedures are needed 1»\ Indian decision- 
makers to establish planning objectives, to formulate and desiflm feasi- 
ble alternative water resource Rvstems, to evaluate probabilities of 
attaining objectives, and to provide guidance and direct ion on reauire- 
ments for implementation of plans. In approaching these problems. 
there must be an awareness of the complexity of the situation, oc- 



77 

casionecl by an overlap of private-public sector concerns and 
considerations. 

Other issues which must be faced by the Indian people are those re- 
lated to the development of coal and shale on Indian lands, the use of 
Indian water for coal liquefaction, gasification, and cooling- and proc- 
essing water in electrical power generating plants, and the economic 
and social tradeoffs that will result if water is diverted from agricul- 
tural, fishing and tourism/recreation purposes. Processes and methods 
are needed which will aid in arriving at the decisions which will result 
in realization of the desired social and economic goals. 

Finally, methods should be sought to increase benefits from existing 
water-oriented and dependent activities. Means should be explored for 
increasing fishery, agricultural and timber }delds, improving and man- 
aging ground and surface water supplies to protect both the quality 
and quantity of the supply, and providing for the training of Indian 
planners, developers and managers. 

These research goals and objectives are designed to assist the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs in carrying out its mission responsibilities. 

Solving the energy-related crater problems. — Accelerated energy de- 
velopment from fossil fuels will have major impact on water and re- 
lated land resources, particularly in the West. Demands for water sup- 
ply will increase substantially, not only for mining and processing, but 
also for expanding community growth and new towns. Problems of 
water allocation, water quality, and adverse environmental and social 
impacts could occur. Research directed to resolving these and similar 
problems becomes essential for the orderly development of the Nation's 
energy resources. 

The following are some of the potential issues and problems which 
will require research attention : the impact of coal mining and oil shale 
development on local and regional water resources ; strip spoil reclama- 
tion for reuse and water quality protection; methodology to minimize 
any adverse water-related consequences — social, economic and environ- 
mental — resulting from fossil fuel development in the western United 
States and Appalachia ; analytical modeling of water supply allocation 
for fuel processing; acid mine drainage control; underground heat 
storage or other disposal of waste heat ; cooling and process water needs 
and conservation; water recycling and water reuse: substitution of 
low-quality water for high-quality water in energy development; en- 
vironmental monitoring; efficient use of water in mining, drilling, 
processing and transportation of fossil fuels. 

These research goals and objectives are designed to assist those 
agencies within the Department of the Interior which are concerned 
with the development of energy resources to carry out their mission 
resoonsibilities. 

Promotion of water use efficiency. — Water use should be efficient 
to conserve the resource for the public, consistent with required needs. 
through water reuse and recycling, improved irrigation practices, and 
by other means. Methods for more efficient water resource use must be 
achieved through prudent allocation and conservation of scarce water 
as compatible with environmental considerations. 

The attainment of those goals could be realized by increasing agri- 
cultural productivity of a unit of water; vegetation management for 



maximum water use efficiency; watershed yield improvement; salinity 
management, including methodology for minimizing the impacts of 
irrigation return flows on the quality of receiving waters; improved 
irrigation efficiencies; reduction of leakage losses in distribution sys- 
tem-: effective utilization of water resources for range management 
and public-domain lands: economics of agricultural irrigation; urban 
recycling and reuse of water resources and controls needed to assure 
water quality acceptability; methods for facilitating ground water re- 
charge in urban areas ; use of saline aquifers for storage of fresh water : 
conjunctive surface, and ground water use: harvesting of water for 
improving land productivity. 

These research goals and objectives are designed to assist the Bureau 
of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, the Geological Sur- 
vey, and other Interior Department agencies in carrying out their mis- 
sion responsibilities. 

Protection of the environment. — Man shares Planet Earth with 
many other living organisms, including plants, which can help make 
the environment more enjoyable. Environmental considerations extend 
well beyond the biota, however, and include elements of the physical 
environment such as soil, water, and air, and their relationship to 
plants and animals and the scenic values afforded by geologic forma- 
tions and erosion processes. In his day-to-day living and industrial de- 
velopment, man must use natural resources. Such use has an impact on 
tin 1 quality of the aquatic environment. Development of methods which 
will permit use of the natural resources without degrading the environ- 
ment — anil, perhaps, even improving the environment — is an impor- 
tant national objective. 

There is a need for environmental, ecological and limnological re- 
search directed constructively to aid the Department of the Interior in 
the accomplishment of its assigned missions through planning for pro- 
tecting, managing, and conserving aquatic and related resources; ap- 
plication of ecological knowledge in conjunction with socioeconomic, 
polil ical, ins! it ut ional, legal, and related land resources considerations 
for use of aquatic areas with minimal degradation of the aquatic en- 
vironment; impacts of energy development, timber harvesting, irri- 
gated agriculture, grazing and water developments on the environ- 
ment : the best use of water, including consideration of fish and wild- 
life, est I iet ic and recreation values, water for irrigation and other pur- 
- : maintenance, in the best condition possible, of inland and coastal 
wetlands, lakes, rivers and estuarine resources; in-st ream tlow require- 
ments for fish and wildlife, esthetic and recreational purposes; man- 
agement of inland and coastal wetlands, lakes and estuarine resources ; 
conservation planning for protection of aquatic ecosystems, as these 
environmental systems affect or are affected by the programs of Hie 
Department. 

These research goals and object ives are designed to assist the Bureau 
of Reclamation, the Bureau of Lund Management, the ( reological Sur- 
vey, t he Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, t he Fish and Wildlife Service, 
and other Interior Department agencies in carrying out their mission 
re ponsibilil ies. 

TitU II research, products. The results achieved by the title I] pro- 
gram are illust rated by >e\ era! brief discussions of projects which have 

been completed. 



79 

Idaho 
The Idaho Water Resources Board has used the results of a project 
entitled "Evaluation of the Regional Multipurpose Economic Benefits 
Resulting from Water-Related Land Resource Development'- to pre- 
pare its interim State water plan. Information produced by the project 
is also being used by the board in studies of other water development 
projects, and the Pacific Northwest River Basin's Columbia River 
Basin plan. 

New York 
A title II project at Cornell University involving both United States 
and Canadian universities developed a "Proposal for Improving the 
Management of the Great Lakes." The House Subcommittee on Inter- 
American Affairs requested a special 2% hour briefing on the results. 

Illinois 

An Illinois project by a consulting engineering firm, entitled "In- 
vestigation of On-Site Stormwater Storage Concepts and Techniques 
for Pollution and Flood Control" studied outside detention storage of 
urban stormwater runoff. Such storage systems appear to offer prac- 
tical and economical means for reducing adverse effects of stormwater 
flow at reasonable costs. The American Public Works Association Re- 
search Foundation agreed to print the first report as an APWA special 
report to insure wide distribution to its members, many of whom are 
potential users of the results. 

Michigan 
A report. "An Economic Analysis of Erosion and Sediment Con- 
trol Methods for Watersheds Undergoing Urbanization," by Dow 
Chemical Co.. is receiving wide interest. Multiple copies have been 
requested by a sediment legislative task force in North Carolina, by 
the Federal Highway Administration, and by the Geological Survey. 
Additionally, numerous requests for individual copies have been re- 
ceived from planning commissions, soil conservation districts, and 
other groups concerned with sediment problems. Methods were de- 
vised in the Dow study to calculate effectiveness of control systems and 
to determine the resulting economic impact on larger streams. 

Massachusetts 
Research conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 
(MIT) dealing with forecasting and control of urban runoff has pro- 
duced results that are being applied to flooding and sediment transport 
problems in Fairfax Comity. Va. The engineering consultants re- 
tained by the county to develop and implement a multi-million-dollar 
flood control program are putting to use techniques developed by MIT 
that will forecast the future hydrologic effects of continued urbaniza- 
tion in Fairfax County. The computer models provided by the research 
enable the county to fairly assess upstream developers for downstream 
hydrologic impacts. 

Florida 

In Florida, an extensive study was made of the water rate structures, 
policies and accounting methods of over 200 municipally owned water 
utilities and of the pricing of public utility services. Results of this 
study were integrated in a project report and a handbook with sug- 



80 

gested guidelines for the pricing of municipal water services. Nu- 
merous requests for these reports have been received from water execu- 
tives. Results have also been published in the Journal of the American 
Water Works Association and the Public Utilities Fortnightly. 

./. Hi gional h\ search 

To improve coordination among the various State institutes, eight 
regional associations were formed in February 1973 : New England, 
Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic-Gulf, Great Lakes-Ohio-Upper Mis- 
sissippi, Missouri River, Southern Plains, Colorado Great. Basin and 
Pacific Northwest. Impetus for this development was provided by sev- 
eral of the Water Resources Research Advisory Panels and the Uni- 
versities' Council on Water Resources, in statements suggesting that- 
voluntary multiuniversity coordination of water resources research 
could be profitable for solving various problems of more than local 
interest. 

OWRT states that the regional organizations provide a firm basis 
for assessing and addressing regional needs. 11 "First, they provide a 
means of focusing attention on specific sets of critical problems in- 
volving water and water-related resources in the regions. Second, they 
provide an excellent mechanism for coordination of research and re- 
search planning between institutes. Third, it has proved to be a major 
stimulus to good coordination with State and local officials and Fed- 
eral field offices, particularly for the identification of the most impor- 
tant regional water problems. Fourth, the regional associations are 
helpful in defining research approaches which are feasible in terms 
of available manpower and relevance to the major problems of the re- 
gions. Fifth, because of their close association with State and local 
agencies, the adoption of research results by user agencies has been 
greatly facilitated." 

The first task assigned the regional groups was to conduct systematic 
analyses of principal problems to be solved, to identify alternatives for 
solving or mitigating these problems, and to detect deficiencies in 
knowledge and understanding which prevent or make risky the imple- 
mentation of these alternatives. It was considered that this approach 
would define the research necessary for effective problem solving and 
would provide a rational basis for making decisions on funding levels 
for research. The first action occurred in 1973, when studies were ini- 
tiated to identify and analyze the critical problems in each region. 

The reports covering the seven projects show that institute di lec- 
tor-. State and regional water officials, and faculty from both institute 
and noninstitute universities were involved. The result was the 1 emer- 
gence of researchable topics pertinent to the most critical regional 
problem-. 

The regional groups have become effect ive roordinat ing and research 
planning entities. In addition, they have begun assessing budgetary 

needs based on their regional activities. An illustration of this taken 
from a summary planning document prepared by the National As- 
sociation of Water [nstitute Directors (NAWID) for fiscal year L977 
shows major problem area categories and projected budget needs ( table 



11 f.s Department of the rnterlor. Office of Water Resource! Research; 1974 Annua] 
Report, Washington, i>.<\, L974, p. 11. 



81 

VI). This effort on the part of the institute directors to identify the 
most urgent research needs and to plan their programs and budget 
requests accordingly, attests to the effectiveness of the institutes as 
important partners in a national-regional-State mechanism for solv- 
ing the Xation's water resources problems. 

TABLE IV.— NATIONAL SUMMARY, FISCAL YEAR 1977 FUNDING NEEDS, STATE WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH 

INSTITUTES 

TITLE I.— WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT i 

Federal 



Annual Matching 

Problem areas allotment grants Total 

I. Water quantity problems $3,633,150 $3,308,000 $6,941,150 

(A) Management of excess water 879,000 536,000 1,415,000 

(B) Supply availability. . . 1,143,750 997,000 2,140,750 

(C) Water utilization 1,132,400 1,362,000 2,494,400 

(D) Water allocation 478,000 413,000 891,000 



Jl. Water quality problems.. 6,125,700 5,732,600 11,858,300 

(A) Ground water 800,700 

(B) Upland watersheds 2,660,250 

(C) Lakes and reservoirs 1,418,400 

(D) Inland and coastal wetlands 335,400 

(E) Estuarine waters.. 384,200 

(F) Urban water 526,750 



1, 000, 000 


1, 800, 700 


1, 827, 500 


4,487,750 


1, 634, 900 


3, 053, 300 


387, 100 


722, 500 


493, 100 


877, 300 


390, 000 


916,750 



III. Planning and management problems 3,241,150 3,363,000 6,604,150 

(A) Operations 499,500 422,000 921,500 

(B) Planning methodologies 1,844,750 1,213,000 2,397,750 

(C) Regional management 1,556,900 1,728,000 3,284,900 



Total 13,000,000 12,403,600 25,403,600 

i National Association of Water Institute Directors. Water resource problems and research needs, fiscal year 1977; 
Raleigh, N.C., Oct. 1, 1975, p. 2. 

Since the start of the regional program, additional effort has been 
devoted to the improvement of procedures for identifying critical 
water problems and the research needs associated with these problems. 
Methods for determining the optimum allocation of research funds 
with which to conduct regional research are under development. More- 
over, steps are being taken to integrate the OWRT problem identifica- 
tion and analysis system with the Water Resources Council's 
assessment of critical water problems. 

The regional research program has enhanced the effectiveness of 
OWRT. Communication between State water resources research in- 
stitutes, their faculties and State and Federal water agencies associ- 
ated with these institutes has been improved. Regional problems are 
being more effectively identified and researched and the focus on water 
resource problems sharpened. The regional research organizations 
have improved communication of research results to water users by 
involving them in regional research planning strategy. The regional 
exercise has also fostered cooperation between State water resources 
research institutes on research proiects outside of the OTVRT program. 

Additional insight into the utility of the regional research program 
and its effectiveness can be gained from the following remarks pre- 
sented bv R. Frank Crrooror, Chairman of the Xew England River 
Basins Commission and Warren Viessman, Jr., former Director of the 



82 

Nebraska Water Resources Research Institute, at the 1973 annual 
meeting of Water Institute Directors : 12 

J\. Frank Gregg — 

As you know, there has been a New England Council of Water Center Directors 
since before the River Basins Commission was set up in 1967. And from the day 
the Commission was set up, we began to work together. I think this was partly 
because Bernie Berger and I knew each other, and that particular chemistry 
proved to be very productive. We've co-sponsored, either formally or informally, 
a whole series of regional conferences on issues relating to water management. 
One was on water resources planning which was very early in the Commission's 
life and very helpful to us in thinking through how we might approach the or- 
ganization of our planning work in New England. A second focuses on getting 
ccdlogical principles into water decision making. A third was on water diversion, 
which is a major issue in parts of New England. Another is coming this spring. 

As you may know, the Council maintains a staff position of Regional Research 
Coordinator, who has been housed in offices at the Commission. We've provided 
him — Rolf Hardy — with office space and secretarial support, and we work very 
closely with him. The Center Directors are now developing, with some input from 
the Commission, a Title II project on lake management in New England. 

A number of other things have gone on. First. I sit as an ex officio member of 
the New England Council of Water Center Directors, and attend most of the 
meetings. We've gotten to know each other pretty well. 1 think we've learned a 
great deal intuitively about the region's resource problems, about those research- 
able aspects of regional resource problems, and something about the constraints 
under which each of us has to operate; This may turn out over time to be the 
most critical part of this kind of continuing collaboration. 

We have drawn upon individual Center Directors extensively to help us design 
our study programs : Level B Studies like the Long Island Sound Study, the 
Southeast New England Study, Connecticut, and such special undertakings as 
we've been involved in or tried to get involved in, like Regional Power Plant 
Siting Studies, and so on. AVe have seen a number of the individual centers 
develop their own research projects which relate quite directly to things the 
Commission is interested in. I've mentioned river diversion, and should note a 
whole set of issues related to management of the Connecticut River. MIT. by the 
way, has a Title II application now pending in OWRT, a very interesting one 
from the standpoint of this conference, which is a proposal to advance the MIT 
research project in water resource planning methodology and analytical tech- 
niques in the context of an ongoing study being carried out by a River Basin 
Commission. This would be in connection with the Southeast New England Study 
that we're running. 

We've made extensive use of the individual Center Directors, and particularly 
Rolf Hardy, the staff director for the New England Council, in trying to organize 
the direct involvement of scientists in New England in the actual design and 
conduct of the major planning investigations that we have underway. 

Aj far as I know, we've institutionalized this somewhat more formally than 
lias been the case in the past. \\'e have formally constituted scientific advisor? 
committees working with US OH Southeast New England, the Long Island Sound 
Study, and the supplemental study that we're doing on the Connecticut River. In 
all three of these cases, the Center Directors ami Rolf Hardy have helped US I" 
think through how the scientific community. Including scientists who arc not 

associated with the Centers or with the Centers' universities, might help us design 

and execute the study. 
Wnrroi Viessman, Jr. — 

As John Neuberger said earlier, last July the Missouri River Basin Commis- 
sion was established. His organization is charged with developing a comprehen- 
sive regonal plan for water resources development and management in the 
Missouri River Basin. This Commission, formed of representatives of State and 

Federal agencies, Offers an ideal, and I think a very convenient, point of com- 
munication on regional problems. Because the Commission is a focal poinl for 
planning, it is certainly able to perceive future nee,!- in advance. I think this is 



■ Interior, Office of \n h and Techno! >*v Proce< 

«.f Hi.- Annual Meeting ■ ■! Water Institute Director**, Washington, D.C., 1073. 



83 

important in terms of research. Certainly we've talked about the problem of lag- 
time in research needs. And if the Commission in some of its activities in advance 
planning can perceive needs for information well enough in advance, this cer- 
tainly offers the opportunity for research centers, such as ours, to provide 
answers or information in a timely fashion. 

Individual States are also heavily involved in planning activities, most of the 
States in the Missouri Basin have State water resources planning agencies, or 
some agency which has that charge, and so they're also actively involved. This 
offers a striking opportunity for regional cooperation among the 10 participating 
Basin centers. To provide this mechanism, a consortium to coordinate research 
planning and implementation on regional problems was established. This con- 
sortium, the MRBWIC, is governed by the directors of the State water centers 
of the 10 Basin States. This organization was conceived and established in several 
meetings which began about a year ago. It is now an informal organization 
which has an elected secretary and a chairman and incorporation is possible if 
this is necessary for fulfilling contractual obligations. 

Now, one of the great advantages of this consortium, as we see it, is the fact 
that each of the States possesses certain unique strengths in various areas, and 
I think it's fair to say that in most cases, no one institute or State possesses all 
the talents required to look at all the water resources problems that are of 
interest in the Missouri Basin. Collectively, however, our 10 centers boast experi- 
enced authorities in every aspect of the subject. 

In addition to the great depth in staff, the 10 centers have outstanding facil- 
ities, in every conceivable resource area. Some examples include state-of-the art 
evapotranspiration facilities in Kansas and Nebraska ; water quality facilities in 
Kansas, North Dakota and Minnesota ; a remote sensing institute in South 
Dakota : biological stations in Missouri. Colorado, and Minnesota ; outstanding 
hydraulic laboratory facilities in Minnesota, Colorado, and Iowa ; a lakeside 
laboratory in Iowa: irrigation research stations in North Dakota, Wyoming, and 
Nebraska ; outdoor hydrological laboratory facilities in Colorado, Montana, and 
Nebraska ; a communicable disease center in Colorado ; and a forestry and bio- 
logical research station in Minnesota. 

The Missouri River Basin framework plan points out the magnitude and com- 
plexity of water resources development and environmental protection tasks in 
the Basin, but additional knowledge and new technology will be needed to solve 
many of the problems being identified. The Missouri Basin Interagency Commit- 
tee, which was the forerunner of the Missouri River Basin Commission, has 
identified research needs, and an excellent inventory on a State-by-State basis 
has also been made by most of the Directors in the 10 States which are 
participating. 

Some of the topics of immediate research interest include water quality pro- 
tection ; environmental impact : sediment and erosion problems ; goal selection in 
planning ; legal aspects of water management and water transfers ; management 
technology: planning technology; wastewater reuse; data systems: and others. 
The Consortium will act as a clearinghouse to assess the most pressing research 
needs and to initiate action by individual States or groups of States to plan and 
undertake the necessary research. 

Using the Missouri River Basin Commission as a focal point provides input 
from the organization's regional planning staff, and offers optimal conditions 
for the Consortium to provide a practical regional service. In addition, many 
opportunities for regional cooperation are presented beyond those afforded by 
the Office of Water Resource Research: the Consortium is studying all of 
these opportunities. For example, in the Water Quality Amendments of 1072, 
there is a provision which would allow the establishment of River Study Centers. 
The directors of 10 State institutes in the Missouri Basin feel that the Con- 
sortium is exceptionally well qualified to serve as such a river study center. In 
support of this view, a proposal is being prepared for submission to EPA. 

Another merit of the Consortium is that it brings the 10 State directors 
together more frequently to discuss common and regional problems, and thus 
provides a greater opportunity for exchange of ideas and for the development of 
truly cooperative projects. The current regional project funded by OWRT is the 
first concrete evidence of the potential of the Consortium to jointly explore 
regional needs. Objectives of this study are: (1) identification of problem 
areas; (2) exploration of alternatives for problem solutions; (3) Identifica- 



84 

tion of research needed for cost-effective problem solving; and (4) assessment 
of mechanics for implementing the needed research. Priorities will be assigned, 
and a Research Needs Schedule prepared to conform to estimates of when end 
results will be most productive. 

The mechanics to be used in achieving these objectives will include State 
research needs assessment by the cooperating 10 States, regional assessment 
of problems by two or more States, having common interests, and a Basin-wide 
evaluation coordinated with the Missouri River Basin Commission and its staff. 
This positive first step should lead to a strong expanded cooperative effort in 
the Missouri River Basin. 

5. Coordination, Consultation and Collaboration 

When the Water Resources Research Act was amended in 1971, 
it contained a provision that : 

The annual programs submitted by the State institutes to the Secretary for 
approval shall include assurance satisfactory to the Secretary that such programs 
were developed in close consultation and collaboration with leading water 
resources officials within the State to promote research, training and other 
work meeting the needs of the State. 

It was the intention of the Congress to assure, through this pro- 
vision, that the programs of the several institutes would be mindful 
of the research needs of the States and regions, and that the knowl- 
edge and experience of officials in the water resources field would be 
put to good use in the planning and implementation of the Public 
Law 88-379 research program. 

A variety of mechanisms have been used by the institutes to comply 
with this provision, but interestingly enough, one of the most effec- 
tive approaches has been a spinoff of the regional research exercises. 

Consultation and collaboration requires a two-way flow of infor- 
mation, and there are several procedures which facilitate this. Most 
institutes have periodic newsletters which serve to inform the State 
water community about the institutes' activities and programs. News 
releases, television and radio programs, research reports, and other 
documents also receive wide distribution. These are not direct ap- 
proaches to collaboration, but are supportive in that research users 
and producers need to be informed about each other's activities if 
they arc to become partners in the true sense of the word. 

The most effective linkages for collaboration are: personal relation- 
ships between institute directors and other officials in a State; state- 
wide institute advisory committees; involvement of institute directors 
in State and regional committee activities related to water resources 
planning and development; workshops for research needs Identifica- 
tion and priori tixat ion involving the principal actors within the State; 
and conferences and seminars on State, regional, and local problems. 

(a) What the States are doing. — Each State institute has an ad- 
\ isory committee which includes State and Federal agency representa- 
tives, local government officials, private citizens, various citizen 
interest groups representatives such as the League of Women Voters, 
and others. Aji example of the types of individuals involved is typified 
by the com posit ion of the Advisory Committee to the Nebraska tnsti- 
t ute. given in figure 6. This 24-member committee maintains communi- 
cation with State and Federal agencies and other organizations 

concerned with Nebraska's water resources. The committee aids in 

identifying research needs and provides guidance for program devel- 
opment and assignment of research priorities. 



85 

Figure VI. — 1915 membership — Nebraska Institute Advisory Committee 

Marion Ball, Director, State Depart- Wendell Lauber, Geneva, Nebr. 

ment of Water Resources Don Long? Publie Relations, Central 

James Barr, State Office of Planning Nebraska Public Power and Irriga- 

and Programing tion District 

Bruce Cowgill, Educational Service Kenneth MacKichan, Water Resources 

Unit #7, Columbus, Nebr. Division, U.S. Geological Survey 

Alfred Drayton O'Neill, Nebr. E. Bruce Meier, Kirkham, Michael & 

Robert O. Epp, Henderson, Nebr. Associates, Consulting Firm 

E. Gerald Erickson, Nebraska Associa- Lee Orton, Executive Director, Ne- 

tion of Resources Districts braska Association of Resources 

Christopher T. Garvey, Planning Staff, Districts 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers B iH Patterson, Soil Conservation 

Dick Goodding, Director of Research, Service 

Nebraska Farm Bureau Cliff Quick, Neuswanger Co., Alliance, 

Carroll Hamon, Director, Platte River ^ebr. 
Level B Study. Missouri River Hal Schroeder, General Manager, 
Basin Planning Office Lower Platte South, Natural Re- 
Paul L. Harley, Planning Officer, Mis- sources District 
souri River Basin Planning Office Don Thompson, McCook, Nebr. 

Ray Hartung, Water Pollution Control Dayle Williamson, Executive Secretary, 
Division Department of Environ- Nebraska Natural Resources Corn- 
mental Control mission 

Mrs. Richard Hoffman, League of Carl C. Clopeck, Advisor from EPA, 

Women Voters, Lincoln, Nebr. c/o Missouri River Basin Commis- 

Earl R. Kendle, Chief, Research Divi- sion, Omaha, Nebr. 
sion, Nebraska Game & Parks Com- 
mission 

Mr. Dayle Williamson, Executive Secretary of the Nebraska Na- 
tural Resources Committee, is chairman; Mr. James Barr, State Of- 
fice of Planning and Programing, is vice chairman. 

Most directors have developed effective personal ties with State 
agencies and other critical contacts. As part of the planning process 
of the regional research groups, State workshops to identify critical 
issues and design research to impact on these have been held. This 
positive mechanism has been very effective in developing meaning- 
ful cooperation. 

A better insight into the mechanisms used by the institutes and the 
emphasis placed b} T them on developing their programs in collab- 
oration with various water officials may be gained by reviewing state- 
ments of individual directors which appeared in the 1974 annual re- 
port of OWRT. 13 

Idaho 
The Water Resources Research Institute at the University of Idaho 
has a long history of working with State agencies and local Federal 
organizations toward the solution of State and regional water re- 
sources problems. The cooperative programs have gone far beyond 
the mere funding of research efforts by those agencies. It has actively 
involved them in proposal preparation and participation in the efforts 
both from parallel studies and cross-involvement of personnel. With 
the change in directorship during fiscal year 1974, there has been 
a strong move made to continue and intensify this policy. 



"U.S. Department of the Interior. Office of Water Resources Research. 1974 Annual 
Report, Washington, D.C., 1974, pp. 9r>-200. 



S6 

Kentucky 

With the cooperation of the State Advisory Council, which was 
established last year, the institute has developed the Kentucky Water 
irces Research Institute plan, which embodies the current water 
resource needs of the State. Copies of the plan have heen distributed 
throughout the State to those individuals and agencies interested in 
water resources research, both to researchers and research users. The 
plan is updated each year after the spring meeting- of the State Ad- 
visory Council, at which institute progress is reported. 
Indiana 

Members of the Water Resources Research Center continue to be 
active in academic and public affairs. An interdisciplinary water re- 
sources seminar brought in several nationally and internationally 
prominent people to discuss various aspects of water resources. Staff 
members regularly attend their respective professional meetings, pre- 
senting research results, and are also active on key State and interstate 
committees, such as the Indiana Water Resources Legislative Study 
Committee. Indiana Environmental Management Board, the Bureau 
of Water and Minerals Advisory Council, Environment and Ecology 
Senate Committee Citizen's Advisories, and advisers to the Wabash 
Valley Interstate Commission. The center has maintained an inter- 
est in the river basin comprehensive studies being conducted in the 
State. Staff members are serving on advisory task forces for the 
Kankakee and Elkhart River Basin studies. A close liaison and com- 
munication with the Ohio River Basin Commission and their staff 
has been established, resulting in regional research. The information 
dissemination program for the center is being expanded, but lacks 
financial support. A workshop considering land use and the water 
resources was held for Indiana citizens. 
Ma 

[nstitute staff also participated in efforts sponsored by the Maine 
Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Environ- 
mental Protection Agency to derive a system for classifying lakes in 
accordance with their inherent natural vulnerability of man-asso- 
ciated stress. This work contributed to the subsequent development of 
proposed standards for the management of lake shorelands. This clas- 
sification system also is being utilized by institute staff, under a con- 
Maine State Planning Office, to characterize the lacus- 
trine resources of Maine's coastal zone. 
higan 

We have relied heavily on consultants in all levels of State govern- 
ment, universil ies, and Indusl ry to provide us with advice on the direc 
tion of the research thai can be undertaken with the limited OWRT 
funds. Perhaps because t be needs are bo obvious and s«> universal, there 
has been no major change in the past year in the direct ion of our pro- 
graming. Research priorities, as denned by our institute staff and 
advisory groups, focus primarily on water quality research and 
management. 

Minm sota 

The center has an advisory committee composed of 1 1 members from 
the University of Minnesota ; State and private colleges; State, local. 



87 

and Federal agencies ; and interest groups and private concerns. Mem- 
bers of the center's advisory committee have participated in water and 
related land resources planning activities of the Minnesota State Plan- 
ning Agency. The center director has served on several important 
State and national water resources committees. 

Virginia 
Development of closer working relationships with State and 
regional agencies this year has been especially gratifying, and is docu- 
mented by the number of projects and programs conducted in associa- 
tion with the State water control board and other water centers of 
the region. Xourishment of these linkages is essential for significant 
progress on the water resources problems we address in common. 

West Virginia 
In addition, the institute continued its efforts toward being the focus 
of water resources research at the university and in the State. The 
State emphasis this year was directed toward involving State agencies 
in determining the research needs of the regions where the State is 
located. A list of all faculty members known to have an interest in 
water research was compiled for use in distributing research informa- 
tion, and a meeting of this group was held to discuss the program and 
activities of the institute. This group may evolve into an informal 
water-research faculty. Communication with the university faculty is 
now adequate. 

Wyoming 
A major vehicle for obtaining consultation and collaboration with 
State agencies involved with water resources is the Governor's inter- 
departmental water conference. The director is a member and usually 
attends the monthly meetings of this group. During the meetings, 
areas of concern to various action agencies are discussed, and the ap- 
plicability of research of the university is set forth. 

Colorado 
Eegional analysis of water problems in collaboration with State and 
Federal agencies and others has produced an excellent base for pro- 
graming inter-institutional research on major regional problems. The 
Colorado River-Great Basin Consortium of Water Institutes and Cen- 
ters (CWIC) has been particularly active in problem analysis jointly 
with the Pacific Southwest Interagency Committee (PSIAC). Not 
the least of the results has been an improved spirit of harmony and 
trust between the academic community and the agencies. 

Arkansas 
The Arkansas Water Resources Research Center has been involved 
during the last year in numerous conferences and committee meetings 
having as their goal the development of a viable and well-managed 
State water plan. The director is currently serving on the Governor's 
Technical Review Committee on Natural Resources. 

South Carolina 
Institute activities have had considerable influence on water re- 
sources in the State and region, as can bo noted by the significant in- 
volvement in public and academic affairs by the principal investigators 
and program administrators. The institute is represented on the State 

66-609—76 7 



88 

Water Resources Commission, and staff members serve as consultants 
to the State Water Resources Commission. Land Resource Conserva- 
tion Commission, the Department of Health and Environmental Con- 
trol, the Governor's reorganization commission, the attorney gen- 
eral's office, as well as to regional councils and city and county 
governments. 

Texas 

The institute has placed considerable emphasis again on developing 
close consultation and collaboration with the local. State, and Federal 
water resources interest in the State. The Water Resources Officials 
Advisory Committee has played a major role in problem identification 
and problem analysis on our major water problems to which the in- 
stitute program is directed. The institute has developed a technical 
advisory committee on specific research projects which provide local 
water resource inputs into our research program and which assure 
the direct application of research results upon completion of the 
projects. 

New Jersey 
Progress has also been made in obtaining the cooperation of agen- 
cies. Two coordination meetings are held each year with agency rep- 
resentatives. The States of Xew Jersey and Pennsylvania and the 
Delaware River Basin Commission have proved particularly inter- 
ested in the XSF-R AXX projects. The State of Xew Jersey has helped 
materially on certain OWRT projects of specific interest, particularly 
work related to the Spruce Run Reservoir in Clinton, X.J. Some agen- 
cies below State level, especially the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commis- 
sion, have been extremely helpful and very interested in the institute's 
research program. 

Xorth Carol'- 1 1 'i 
The institute gave major attention this year to identification and 
-ii lent of major water resource problems and research needs in 
North Carolina and the South Atlantic-Gulf Region through (1) its 
biennial revision of institute report Xo. 2, ''Water Resource Problems 
and Research Needs of North Carolina," and (2) cooperative efforts 
with directors of other institutes in the region, Institute report Xo. 2 
was prepared in close collaboration with the institute advisory com- 
mittee and it has been incorporated in North Carolina's State water 
plan. This institute is coordinating interinstitute regional efforts in 
arch on public participation in water resources planning. 

Oklahoma 
Finally, the institute is most pleased with our close and cordial 
relationships with other State. Federal and private water agencies of 

our icgion. We have been directly associated in research projects and 
m formal inn exchange programs wit h t he I )enver. Aniarillo. and ( Okla- 
homa City offices of the bureau of Reclamation, the Tulsa District 
office and the Vicksburg Waterways Experiment Station of the Corps 
of Engineers, the Kerr Laboratory of the EPA, the Bureau of Sport 
Fisheries and Wildlife (both directly and through the Oklahoma De- 
partment <>f Wildlife Conservation), and the I '.S. Geological Survey. 
The "Governor's Coordinating Committee for- Water Resources Re- 
search," our parent advisory body, has been instrumental in effecting 



89 

this close rapport. The semiannual meetings of the Governor's commit- 
tee provide an excellent vehicle for each represented agency to keep 
abreast of ongoing projects and the research needs of our State, and 
assure that the Oklahoma Water Resources Research Institute meets 
the need for which it was created. 

Nebraska 
The Nebraska Institute develops its research program in close co- 
operation with key water officials, interested lay persons and other 
institute directors in the Missouri River Basin. Mechanisms to accom- 
plish this include personal interviews, workshops, questionnaires, re- 
gional directors' meetings and specialty conferences. The guidance 
received through these channels assures an effective research program 
with a focus on issues of significance to the State and the region. Proj- 
ects are assembled into complementary groups to intensify efforts and 
to increase overall productivity. 

Nevada 
The center is conducting numerous other projects which deal with 
various aspects of Nevada and regional water resource problems. These 
projects are funded by OWRT, other Federal agencies, the State of 
Nevada, local governments and private industry. Through its state- 
wide advisory council on water resources research, the center has 
made a strong effort to undertake projects of high State and local 
priority. Several of the current studies are a direct result of council 
suggestions. 

Neiv Hampshire 
During the past year, faculty and staff associated with the center 
have made a determined effort to increase the effectiveness of the cen- 
ter's program throughout the State. Faculty and students have worked 
with several lake associations, high school groups and State and Fed- 
eral agencies, providing both useful information and technical assist- 
ance. Research project leaders have discussed their project findings 
with members of the State advisory council. Members of the advisory 
council, several of whom are members of State and Federal agencies, 
in turn have provided the center and center faculty with valuable 
suggestions regarding areas of needed research. 

Rhode Island 
The Rhode Island Water Resources Board is working in close co- 
operation and coordination with the Water Resources Research 
Center at the University of Rhode Island to encourage and support 
research effort in various water-related endeavors that will be of 
immediate and general benefit to the public. Toward this objective, 
the Water Resources Board serves as a member of the State Advisory 
Board for the Water Resources Research Center to assist in formulat- 
ing and guiding research efforts into areas of immediate concern to 
operating State and local water agencies. 

Arizona 
The center continues to be supported in its administering and co- 
ordinating responsibilities by a most helpful State advisory committee 
composed of representatives from the Arizona Water Resources Com- 
mittee ; the State Departments of Game and Fish, Health Services, and 



90 

Land; the State Water Commission; and State Senator Stan Turley 
of the legislative council. 

Alaska 

The State of Alaska is continuing to contribute a great deal to the 
water resources research program. Most of the effort is through the 
contributions of the University of Alaska, with State of Alaska funds. 
Also, the State agencies, particularly the Department of Fish and 
Game, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of En- 
vironmental Conservation, and the Department of Highways, are con- 
tinuing to support programs and cooperate with data collection and 
assessment in many ways. The State of Alaska's direct su ppor t in the 
past several years has been much more than that of the OWRT basic 
allotment grant. 

(b) Federal, State and regional coordination, — Federal coordina- 
tion of the Public Law 88-379 program rests operationally with 
OWKT, while State and regional coordination has been shared be- 
tween OWRT and the institutes. 

Sections 103, 104, 300 and 301 of the act pertain to cooperation and 
coordination. They are as follows : 

Sec. 103. Moneys appropriated pursuant to this Act, in addition to being avail- 
able for expenses for research, investigations, experiments and training con- 
ducted under authority of this Act, shall also be available for printing and 
publishing the results thereof and for administrative planning and direction. The 
institutes are hereby authorized and encouraged to plan and conduct programs 
financed under this Act in cooperation with each other and with such other 
agencies and individuals as may contribute to the solution of the water problems 
involved, and moneys appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be available for 
paying the necessary expenses of planning, coordinating and conducting such 
cooperative research. 

Sec. 104. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby charged with the responsibility 
for the proper administration of this Act and, after full consultation with other 
interested Federal agencies, shall prescribe such rules and regulations as may be 
sary to carry out its provisions. He shall require a showing that institutes 
designated to receive funds have, or may reasonably be expected to have, the 
capability of doing effective work. He shall furnish such advice and assistance 
as will best promote the purposes of this Act, participate in coordinating research 
initiated under this Act by the institutes, indicate to them such lines of inquiry 
as to him seem most important, and encourage and assisl in the establishment 
and maintenance of cooperation by and between the institutes and between them 
and other research organizations, the United States Department of the Interior, 
and other Federal establishments. 

"SEC. 300. The Secretary of the Interior shall obtain the continuing advice 
and cooperation of all a :" the Federal Government concerned with water 

problems, of State and local governments, and of private Institutions and Indi- 
viduals, to assure thai the programs authorized in this Act will supplement 
and not duplicate established water research programs, to stimulate research 
in otherwise neglected areas, and to contribute to a comprehensive, nationwide 
program of water and related resources research. He shall make generally avail- 
able Information and reports on projects completed, in progress, or planned 

under the provisions of this Act, in addition to any direct publication of infor- 
mation by the Institutes themselves. 

•Si i ::oi. The President shall, by such means as be deems appropriate, clarify 
Agency responsibilities for Federal water resources research and provide for 
Interagency coordination of Buch research, Including the research authorized 
by this Act Buch coordination shall Include (a) continuing review of the ade- 
quacy of the Government-wide program in water resources research. (t>) Identi- 
fication and elimination of duplication and overlaps between two or more agency 
programs, (c) Identification of technical needs In various water resources re- 
earch categories, (d) recomendations with respect to allocution of technical 
effort among the Federal agencies, (e) review of technical manpower needs 



91 

and findings concerning the technical manpower base of the program, (f) 
recommendations concerning management policies to improve the quality of the 
Government- wide research effort, and (g) actions to facilitate interagency 
communication at management levels. 

At the Federal level, coordination involves both the activities of 
the institutes and the entire Federal research effort. The former is 
handled by O WRT through its ability to : control funding ; establish 
research priorities ; participate in regional program planning ; advise 
institute directors ; and review research proposals. In terms of mini- 
mizing duplication of effort, focusing on critical problems, and obtain- 
ing State and local input. OWRT has done very well. It has also used 
the recommendations of the Committee on "Water Resources Research 
in designing its research programs. 

OWRT has no authority to coordinate Federal research on an 
agencywide basis, but it has aided in this process insofar as it is 
practical to do so. For example, an arrangement has been in effect 
for several years, between EPA and OWRT, whereby selected pro- 
posals are sent to EPA for their review and recommendations. 
Packets of executive summaries of all proposals under the matching 
grant and the title II programs are also sent to EPA and other 
selected water resources agencies in the Federal Government. An in- 
formal arrangement has been established with the N ation al Environ- 
mental Research Center at Cincinnati, whereby OWHT exchanges 
notices of research proposals (XRP), and EPA, in return, furnishes 
its plans for in-house research on water use and reuse for upcoming 
fiscal years. 

An internal coordinating link was established in fiscal year 1972, 
when a memorandum of agreement between OWRR and the Bureau 
of Reclamation was signed, establishing a basis for cooperation in 
research planning and performance at both headquarters and field 
levels. Opportunity for OWRR to act as coordinator of water research 
activities within the Department of the Interior was further enhanced 
by a 1974 recommendation of the Under Secretary of tlie Interior 
that OWRT work with key research and development personnel 
within USDI to develop an assessment of the R. & D. efforts of 
the Department upon which to establish goals and objectives. 

The principal mechanism used to coordinate the total Federal water 
research program is the Interagency Committee on Water Resources 
Research (COWRR). This committee was set up as a part of the 
Federal Council for Science and Technology. It has provided a 
mechanism for coordination of Federal water resources research 
activities, and has served to identify gaps and inadequacies in agency 
research programs, minimize duplication, and influence the scope and 
direction of future R. & D. programs. Beginning in lOG. ,, the Chair- 
man of COWRR was a member of the staff of the Office of Science 
and Tpchnoloo-y (OST). and the committee served in an advisory 
capacity to OST. which was the R. & D. arm of the Exccutivp Office 
of the President. Under Reorganization Plan Xo. 1 of 1973. OST 
was abolished and its functions transferred to the National Science 
Foundation. 14 

The activities of COWRR have been extensive. Priority research 
areas have been identified but the committer has not had .'irear success 



14 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Jnn. 20, 107.?, vol. 0, Xo. 4, p. 75 



92 

in redirecting Federal research into these areas. The difficulty of 
inducing a measurable response in redirected Federal programs in 
terms of budgets is one of the weakest areas of COAVRR experience. 
Agency inertia has generally not been overcome. Although the hy- 
drological decade was strongly supported by the committee, budget 
response by the agencies was small and cautious, and response by the 
Congress was almost zero. On the positive side, however, has been 
the use of COAVRR priority areas by the Office of Water Resources 
Research in establishing guidelines for its research grant programs. 

At the State level, OWRT, in partnership with the institutes, has 
acted to coordinate water research activities to the extent this can be 
done. There is considerable water-related research within each State 
conducted by agencies, industry, noninstitute universities, research 
and development firms, and others. A relatively small percentage of 
the funding for this is derived through OTYTIT programs and. thus. 
there is little authority for the State institutes to act as statewide 
research coordinators in the strict sense of the word. Through the 
advisory committee mechanism and other arrangements with State 
water officials, a good deal of coordination has resulted, however, 
especially in programs that are directly tied to State interests and 
that make use of State funds. In addition, since many institutes ad- 
minister research grants from EPA. other Federal and State agencies 
and private sources, their coordinating role through budget responsi- 
bility often extends beyond the bounds of the Public Law 88-370 
program. The potential of the institutes to assume a greater role in 
coordinating State-oriented research programs is beginning to receive 
more attention. Given the resources, the institutes can assume great 
leadership in this area. 

Regionally, the institute groups, in concert with OAVRT, river basin 
commissions, and interagency basin committees, are beginning to 
develop effective coordinating machinery, and several examples exist — 
New England and Missouri River Basins — where the institutes have 
participated in guiding the development of a river basin's research 
program. 

(r) Prohlcmz of coord'mat'iori. — Problems of coordination are tied 
to the lack of authority of OWKT and the institutes to control research 
beyond t hat provided for by t he Public Law 88 ->"!> program : t he small 
OWRT budget compared with funds for water research from other 
sources; the great number of agencies, industries, universities, and 
others engaged in research on water-related issues; poor communica- 
tion between research producers and research users: and other factors. 

The following statement by t he I director of the Ma ssach usetts Inst i- 
tute, which appeared in the 1071 annual report of OAVKR. amplifies 
some of these difficulties: in 

The Center continues to stress the need to obtain :i substantive input into the 
research program by the State's water resources agencies. Such input is con- 
sidered especially Important in creating a climate of joint Interesl and endeavor 
which is not only desirable per se. hut which helps realize the Center's require- 
ments for "consultation and collaboration on the pari of water resources officials 
in the State." However, efforts t" do this seem to lie handicapped by a Dumber 
of conditions, notably budgetary hardship and work pressures on public agencies' 
professional staffs. The ('enter has found so fur that participation by senior 
public officials Is short in duration, discontinuous, limited in commitment, and 



> nartmen( of the rnterior Office of Water Resources Research, 1974 Annual 
D C, 1974, p .1".:. 



93 

dependent on communications with their subordinates. The fact is few water 
resources officials at the decisionmaking level have the resources and the time 
necessary to consult and collaborate in ways that are truly helpful and meaning- 
ful. Short of this Center's undertaking studies directly related to public agency 
tasks, it appears that a major effort to obtain the desired consultation and col- 
laboration can at best be only partially successful. Even so. State water resources 
agencies participated effectively in a special two-day session in March conducted 
by the Center for review of ongoing research and evaluation of proposals for 
new research. 

In spite of the complexities of coordination. O TTRT and the State 
institutes have done a fairly good job of coordination and the evidence 
is that a more effective coordinating role is emerging — primarily as 
an outgrowth of the requirement for consultation and collaboration 
and as a spinoff of the regional research program. 

6. Applied Versus Basic Research 

There is no policy in O \YRT regarding the mix of basic and applied 
research to be funded. Emphasis has been principally on application. 
This is understandable in terms of the mission of the Department of 
the Interior and the eagerness of Federal and State agencies to obtain 
rapid solutions to many critical water-related problems. 

Basic research should not be ignored, however, and the establish- 
ment of some policy in this area appears warranted. There are many 
examples of research payoff which could not have been guessed at 
when the research was proposed. The opportunity for basic research 
must be protected and fostered if solutions to problems not yet con- 
ceived are to be obtained in a useful time frame. There must continue 
to be a place for the imaginative person who doesn't want to join a 
team or be directed, and Federal research programs should share in 
this responsibility. 

E. INFORMATION DISSEMINATION 

Information dissemination activities of O \VRT are manifest in the 
Water Resources Scientific Information Center (WRSIC) and the 
technology transfer programs of O vVRT and the State institutes. 

1. Water Resources Scientific Information Center 

The TTRSIC was developed to provide the Nation's water resources 
community with information about current and completed research 
projects in the form of abstracts, catalogs, topical bibliographies, and 
other summary formats. 16 

In compliance with the coordination and technical information dis- 
semination responsibilities set forth in sections 104 and 300 of the 
apt, \YRSIC is responsive to the water resources scientific informa- 
tion needs of Federal water agencies and others, assists in avoiding un- 
desirable replication of research, and helps improve communications 
and coordination of efforts among those engaged in federally spon- 
sored water-related research. These objectives are achieved through the 
production and dissemination of various documents such as a twice- 
monthly abstract journal of research results and developments, an 
annual abstract catalog of ongoing research projects, state-of-the-art 
reviews, and topical bibliographies, and by operation of a computer- 

10 T'.S. Department of the Interior. Offiee of Water Resources Research. Description of 
the water resources research, training, and technical information dissemination programs. 
Washington, D.C., April 1974, pp. 2, 6. 



94 

aided program for retrieval of WRSIC information base material in 
response to specific inquiries. 

The two major WRSIC publications are : 

Water Resources Research Catalog. — An annual publication con- 
taining descriptions of all ongoing water research projects. Federal as 
well as non-Federal, on file with the Science Information Exchange. 
Such catalogs contain as many as 6,000 or more descriptions. Kadi 
volume also contains subject, investigator, contractor, and supporting 
agency indexes. 

cted Water Resources Abstracts. — A semimonthly journal that 
includes abstracts of current and earlier pertinent monographs, journal 
articles, reports (federally supported and otherwise) . et cetera, relat- 
ing to water resources research results and new developments. Abstracts 
contain bibliographic citations and sets of descriptors, in addition to 
being classified by 10 water resources research fields and GO groups. 
Each semimonthly issue contains approximately 600 abstracts. 

The largest source of input, representing approximately 90 percent 
of the total TVRSIC input, is from literature centers of competence or 
information analysis centers. TVRSIC receives input from 13 such 
centers which it supports, such as the University of Arizona's center 
on arid lands water resources and the University of Florida's center 
on eastern water law. 

Another source of input for TVRSIC has been from a large discipline- 
oriented abstracting service : Biological Abstracts. Biological Abstracts 
monitors its service to select references in specified areas of water re- 
sources, adds indexing terms to these, and transcribes the data onto 
TVRSIC precoded input forms to enable processing for the TVRSIC 
in formation base and for display in published form as part of selected 
sources abstracts. 

The YVRSIO information retrieval system, formally known as 
Gipsy (general information processing system), is one of several new 
computer search programs developed to aid searchers and compilers of 
large-to-medium files to store, retrieve, manipulate, and format in- 
formation more rapidly and effectively. This WRSIC reactive system 
- omprises a search program, plus a set of utility programs. Searches 
are batched or teleprocessed from remote terminals. 

Tn addition to Gipsy, a prototype computer search and retrieval 
network consisting of five direct access terminals ( RECON) has been 
established on an experimental basis. These are located at Cornell 
University, the University of North Carolina, \\\c University of Wis- 
consin, the University of Arizona, and VPI. This network is in the 
pilot-operation stage to establish how Gipsy works in a. university re- 
search environment, the nature of questions thai will be asked, the 
Paction that will be received in response to these questions, and 
the type of charges that will he necessary to make these centers self- 
supporting through their State water resources research institutes. It 

is expected that the network will eventually include terminals at all 

Siate water resources research institutes. 

The 1!'7! advisory panel of the Office of Water Research and Tech- 
nology reviewed the WRSIC operations and made several recom- 
mendations: 17 (1) full consideration should be given to the feasibility 



"U.S. Department of the [nterior. Office of Water Research and Technology. Report 
t.. the Secretary <>f the Interior of the Water Resources Research Advisory Panel, Wash- 
ington, D.C., Mar. 17, 1975, pp. L', ■:. 



95 

of equipping each of the institutes with a WRSIC terminal; (2) full 
coordination and input should be obtained from other bureaus and 
offices within the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers, EPA, and other governmental agencies engaged in water 
resources research; (3) greater effort should be expended in obtaining 
inputs from State water agencies as well as from water research cen- 
ters; (4) an effective educational program is needed to advise Federal 
agencies, State agencies, and institutions of the scope and extent of the 
services offered by the system; and (5) more attention should be given 
to broadening the array of users. 

The panel believed that WRSIC could be one of the most important 
elements of OWRT, and it recommended that the director initiate a 
study to determine ways to make it more effective. It was further noted 
that the study should consider expansion of WRSIC to become a foca] 
point for all information sources in water resources. 

WRSIC has not been as widely recognized or as effectively used as 
it could be. If followed, the recommendations of the advisory panel 
would improve performance and capability. 

2. Programs in Technology Transfer 

Effective dissemination of research results is a joint responsibilty of 
OWRT and the State institutes. Section 100(b) of Public Law 92- 
175 states in part : 

. . . and scientific information dissemination activities, including identifying, 
assembling, and interpreting the results of scientific and engineering research 
deemed potentially significant for solution of water resource problems, providing 
means for improved communication regarding such research results, including 
prototype operations, ascertaining the existing and potential effectiveness of such 
for aiding in the solution of practical problems, and for training qualified persons 
in the performance of such scientific information dissemination ; . . . 

OWRT has partly satisfied its obligation in this regard through 
WRSIC, and additional effort in technology transfer is planned under 
the reorganization (sect. V) . 

At the time of enactment of Public Law 92-175, it was expected that 
funding of the allotment program would be increased to the newly 
authorized level of $250,000 to permit meeting expanded requirements 
for technology transfer and coordination. As it has turned out, only a 
slight advance in funding over the 1965 level has occurred, and im- 
plementation of the technology transfer mission has been limited. The 
State institutes have gone ahead with this program, largely on their 
own resources, but the level of effort is not what it could be if adequate 
funding were available. 

Without proper communication of research findings tothe user com- 
munity, the water research program has limited value. The State in- 
stitutes have accepted this thesis, and are engaged in various pro- 
grams to meet the need. For example, the North Carolina institute 
requires that a plan for research utilization be included in each research 
proposal. Researchers are asked to: (1) Identify potential user 
groups; (2) contact and interact with them; and (3) recommend 
methods and procedures for the transfer of research findings to users. 
Various devices to improve the transfer of research results have been 
employed by the institutes. These include: technical seminars and 
manuals; semitechnical seminars; video tapes; technical capsule re- 
ports; seminar publications; newsletters; training programs; project 



96 

reviews; publication lists; advisory committees: appointment of in- 
formation specialists; routed copies of correspondence; circulated bul- 
letins and memorandums: telephone calls: dialogs; project visitations; 
interest inventories; speakers' bureaus: workshops: internships; and 
programs of continuing education. 

Institute directors reported in 1970 that they were distributing over 
100,000 copies of publications per year. 18 Ninety-five percent main- 
tained a mailing list for this distribution. The total number of tech- 
nical publications produced by the institutes exceeded 1,200 per year. 
Thirty-five short courses, enrolling over 1,700 people, and 68 con- 
ferences, with an attendance over 5,000, were arranged by the directors. 
In fiscal year 1970. the institutes had 99 advisory committees, with 
an estimated membership of almost 1,200 persons. These data illustrate 
that a substantial user awareness program has been initiated. This 
is a necessary step in the technology transfer process, but disseminat- 
ing information on results is not enough. A greater effort to sell those 
who need the results on actually using them must be mounted, and 
this will require greater funding than has been available in the past. 

A review of statements by several institute directors from the 197-1 
Annual Report of (JWRT will serve to illustrate the interest on their 
part in this phase of the program and the various means being taken 
to comply with the technology transfer requirements of the act. 19 

Arizona 
The center continued to respond to Public Law 88-379, as amended, 
by calling for expanded scientific information dissemination activities. 
Through project A-031-AIIIZ, the Arizona water information sys- 
tem became the focal point for water information dissemination in the 
State. The Arizona Water Commission has contributed funds to de- 
velop hydrologic data storage and retrieval capability on the DEC-10 
computer system for access in Phoenix. Six and four editions of the 
statewide, bimonthly news bulletin and project information bullet in, 
respectively, were distributed. Further, through continuing project 
A-042-AliIZ. a bibliographical information system, complementary 
to the above, for water yield improvement practices is being developed. 
And lastly, the University of Arizona lias been designated as one of 
five regional information dissemination centers for the Water Re- 
sources Scientific Information Center (WRSIC). Services will be 
rendered to the Western States for water resource abstracts, under a 
national computer net work based at Oak Ridge, Tenn. 

Idaho 

The institute believes that the best means of gaining and keeping 
the confidence of individuals and groups interested in the water rc- 
30UTCes of Idaho and the Pacific Northwest region is frankness and 
receptivity to suggestions. To this end. a newsletter has been estab- 
lished, and this instrument has been used to illuminate the goals and 
interests of the institute, and to encourage input by nonscientists. 
With a circulation ol* approximately 500, the newsletter has carried 



', [.. Anderson, J. C. Prey, B <> [kenberry, and W. m Bwope. "Water Center Orga- 
nization and Management." Institute for Research on Land and Water Resources, Penn- 
gylvsnis sccc University. University Park, Pa. Research publication N< 

Department <>r the Interior, Office ot Water Resources Research, 1074 annual 
report, Washington, iu\ i:>7 i. 



97 

an article on developing a research program for Idaho, and another 
stating what the institute is all about. Responses received thus far have 
indicated a positive reception. In addition to the normal "informa- 
tion" articles, readers are regularly encouraged to complete and submit 
a "research need statement." 

In April 1971, the institute published a complete listing of pub- 
lications developed as a result of its research efforts. The report shows 
that, since its inception, the institute has used the services of 99 dif- 
ferent faculty and graduate students on OWRT-related research proj- 
ects alone. On the 46 OWRT projects listed, those investigators pro- 
duced 151 reports, published through various media. Requests for 
copies of the publications have come from almost every State in the 
Union, as well as from many foreign nations. With the wide release 
of the publication list, the number of requests has increased markedly. 
This confirms the need for and the value of a positive program of 
information dissemination. 

But announcing the availability of publications must be only one 
of a number of techniques used. The development of an information 
dissemination program is now under consideration. 

Information dissemination will be an increasing thrust of the in- 
stitute in the future. T\ T e feel that it must be an integral part of a 
viable research program. In fact, two of the four research "goals" 
articulated in the January 1974 Newsletter address this point: (1) 
Continuing the dialog between researchers and users, and (2) insur- 
ing a wide distribution of results. 

Maine 
The institute's water resources library, started in fiscal year 1973, \ 
has grown to approximately 1.500 holdings, and efforts are under- 
way to coordinate the efforts of similar environmental resource cen- 
ters around the State. Publication of an "occasional paper" series, 
designed to educate the public on various aspects of water and en- 
vironmental resources problems, has been initiated. And plans are 
being formulated for a series of public seminars, short courses, and 
workshops on water resources subjects of importance to Maine and 
Xew England. 

Massachusetts 
Center-supported projects are relevant to public problems, and re- 
search findings should be transferred quickly and effectively to those 
who need the information. The conventional mechanism of informa- 
tion transfer, publication in scientific journals, is generally not satis- 
factory for many "users" of information. A good example is the re- 
port concerning the presence of a still-unidentified substance in the 
Millers River, a polluted tributary of the Connecticut River, that is 
mutagenic for a common species of aquatic fern (A-063-MASS). In 
view of the similarity of biochemical processes among living things, 
and the fact that Millers River water has been proposed as a supple- 
mental source of drinking water for Metropolitan Boston, the need 
for prompt evaluation and application of this information is clear. 
In this case, the information was presented directly to representatives 
of key Federal and State agencies. 



98 

How to achieve a satisfactory process of information transfer re- 
mains a high priority challenge. This center was not assured direct 
responsibility for its development, but has encouraged principal in- 
vestigators to form "information user groups" and to promote com- 
munications informally by letter and telephone. It is now time to 
evaluate this procedure as a basis for future guidance in information 
transfer. 

Tennessee 
The center is actively engaged in the dissemination of research find- 
ings to libraries and water resource personnel in the United States and 
abroad. The director and other principal investigators have: (1) Pre- 
sented lectures to many technical and civic groups, and (2) partici- 
pated in State and regional workshops and seminars. The exchange of 
ideas between water user groups and the center has been actively 
maintained. Regional cooperation with other water centers in the 
South Atlantic-gulf region is at a high level, and cooperative research 
with Virginia and North Carolina is continuing. The center's director 
is actively engaged as chairman of two county commissions charged 
with solving water and solid-waste problems in the Knoxville metro- 
politan area. Recommendations and guidelines for the formation of a 
permanent board to direct these county activities are being evaluated. 
The research agreement between the center and the city of Knoxville 
continued in fiscal year 1974, and was extended for fiscal 197r>. Data 
obtained in this research are used by both the city and the center. 

Nebraska 
The Nebraska institute has engaged in all aspects of scientific infor- 
mation dissemination. These include publication of institute reports, 
technical articles in journals, popular articles, press releases, a monthly 
newsletter, lectures by principal investigators to scientific and lay 
groups, and sponsorship of various seminars and programs of continu- 
ing education. During fiscal year 107-!. the institute sponsored several 
arch seminars and conferences. Topics included regional planning 
for natural resources, energy-water relationships, and optimization 
systems. 

North Carolina 

The institute continued its program of water resources research in- 
formation dissemination through distribution of its research project 
completion reports (16 during fiscal year 1974), newsletter (1,400 
copies distributed monthly), its liaison r< tatives in user groups 

(54 individuals were formally designated as such by their organiza- 
tions), and group sessions and workshops involving researchers and 
j'cli users. Major workshops we:-;' conducted on bind diposa] of 
water, computer systems for water and land use planning, public par- 
ticipation in water resource planning:, and abatement of pulp mill 
pollution. Smaller groups mei formally <>n a1 least \\ projects, with 
innumerable informal sessions. 

A well-received information transfer medium initiated during the 
yen- was a new publication series of "research specials." These are 
four- to six-page leaflets, in popular language, summarizing and sup- 
plementing project completion reports. 



99 

Virginia 
Dissemination and utilization of research findings have increased 
substantially in the past year, in part through the addition of an ex- 
tension specialist to the center's staff. In addition to establishing a far 
more effective two-way flow of information with the extension divi- 
sion, he played a principal role in many of the center's informational 
presentations — including a Thermal Pollution Analysis Conference, 
five seminars on the application of the mathematical model developed 
in A-050-VA, a conference on land use issues (first of a series), and 
seven seminars examining issues raised by the National Water Com- 
mission's final report. He also managed the center's extensive program 
of continuing support for the national flood insurance program. 

Wisconsin 
The OWRT/WRSIC-sponsored GIPSY remote terminal system 
was promoted in the 21-State region served by Wisconsin. In addi- 
tion to distribution of brochures, this modern computer-based infor- 
mation retrieval activity was described at several regional meetings 
and at numerous meetings in Wisconsin. Over 137 searches were con- 
ducted during the year, with participation from 12 States. It is 
expected that the system will receive greater attention by users as 
confidence and expanded services develop with the transfer of com- 
puter facilities to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 

Pennsylvania 

Considerable activity has been sustained throughout the year in 
the area of information dissemination and interaction with State 
agency personnel and user groups. The policy, initiated last year, of 
requesting State agency personnel to act as liaison to ongoing re- 
search projects, appears to be working successfully. Under the aus- 
pices of project A-013-PA, significant interaction at the grass- 
roots level has been obtained, and a constant flow of information to 
a variety of user groups has been promoted. In a joint effort with 
the Water Resources Center at Cornell University, a dramatization 
of the issues involved with flood-plain management was made, using 
the technical support and the liaison provided by extension services 
at Penn State and Cornell. As part of this effort, a 35-minute color 
film was produced and aired during a 1-hour television special shown 
durincr prime time on WBXC-TV, Binghamton, New York. 

OWRT has special problems in information dissemination that 
other Federal agencies do not have. This is because most agencies 
sponsoring research are "mission" oriented, and their research needs 
are identified and met internally. On the other hand. OWRT has a 
responsibility to all water resources interests and Federal water re- 
sources research programs. 20 

F. MANPOWER AND TRAINING 

Section 100(b) of the 10H4 net provides for the training of scientists 
through appropriate association with research activities. The need 
for developing an adequate manpower base was highlighted by Presi- 



^Gladwoll. John S. "Research and Development In Water Resources." National Water 
Commission, Washington, D.C., January 1972, pp. 174, 175. 



100 

dent Johnson in a 1965 memorandum to heads of Federal departments 
and agencies on the subject : " Strengthening Academic Capability for 
Science Throughout the Country.'' 21 

In this memorandum, the President stated that a strong and vital 
educational system is essential, and he pointed out that at the top 
of the educational pyramid, education and research become insepara- 
ble, lie said: 

All Federal agencies with substantial research and development programs 
have an interest and need to develop academic capabilities for research and 
scientific education as a part of their missions. 

To the fullest extent compatible with their primary interests in specific fields 
of science, their basic statutes, and their needs for research results of high 
quality, all Federal agencies should act so as to: 

( a i Encourage the maintenance of outstanding quality in science education 
where it exists ; 

(b) Provide research funds to academic institutions affording them the oppor- 
tunity to improve and extend their programs of research and science education 
and to develop the potentialities for high quality research of groups and indi- 
viduals including capable younger faculty members ; 

(c) Contribute to the improvement of potentially strong universities * * * 

Title I research Investigators. — Over 1,400 research scientists were 
engaged in studies supported wholly or in part by OWRT under 
title I of the act in fiscal year 197-4. 22 These researchers, represented 
LOO or more scientific and engineering disciplines, included 450 
engineers, 32*2 biologists, 150 economists, 103 chemists, 77 geologists, 
51 hydrologists, 41 physicists, 31 soil scientists, 26 agronomists and 
:24 lawyers.- 3 

Title I research assistants. — Students do not receive direct grants 
or support under the Public Law 88-379 program, but many thousands 
have been employed on projects where they have gained valuable 
experience. A history of support is given in figure 6. The number 
of students assistants reported in 1974 was 1,835, and about one-third 
of these were undergraduates. Of the students reported by the State 
water resources research institute directors in 1974, 878 served in a 
professional research assistant capacity on 506 annual allotment 
projects; 017 served similarly on 286 matching grant projects; and 
the remaining 340 served in nonprofessional, yet important, roles in 
the furtherance of approved projects.- 1 



» White House. "Memorandum on Strengthening Academic Capability for Science 
Throughout the Country" Washington, O.C, Sept. 13, 1965. 

-- I'.S. Department of the Interior. Office of Water Resources Research; 1071 Annual 
Report, Washington, D.C., l'.)7r>, p. r>7. 

■ I hid., p. 58. 

m [bid., p. 58. 



101 



Number of Students 
2400 



2000 — 



1600 — 



1200 



800 



400 — 




1965 '66 '67 '68 



'72 '73 '74 



Figure 6. — Students receiving financial support by serving as research assistants 
in the Public Law 88-379 program, title I. 



102 

The employment status of graduating students is given in table 
7. About half have found positions in water-related fields, while the 
remainder have returned to school or gone into military service. Of 
those employed, about 35 percent have gone with private industry and 
about 40 percent have gone with State and Federal agencies. 

Title II research investigators and student assistants. — While it 
might be expected that few of the nonuniversity organizations con- 
ducting title II projects would utilize student assistants, reports from 
41 nonuniversity title II projects have revealed that, in 16 cases, stu- 
dents did assist with the research. For example, the Huron River Wa- 
tershed Council of Ann Arbor, Michigan, had students from the Uni- 
versity of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University in the areas of 
biology, mechanical engineering, landscape architecture, and law as- 
sisting with a study to develop methods for protection, improvement 
and use of small, urbanizing watersheds. 25 

The training program which has evolved as a result of Public Law 
88-379 has been highly productive, as evidenced by the data given in 
table VII and figure 6. In view of the gradual elimination of the train- 
ing grant program supported by EPA, the OWET program stands as 
the only remaining major source of support for professional manpower 
development in the water resources field. While not the major objective 
of the act. it is likely that the value of this phase of the program is 
alone worth the Federal investment to date. 

TABLE VII— STATUS OF GRADUATES AS REPORTED AT THE END OF SELECTED SCHOOL YEARS, 1965-66 TO 

1973-7412 

(In percent] 



Status 


1965-66 


1965-67 


1967-68 


1358-69 


1969-70 


1970-71 


1971-72 


1972-73 


1973-74 


Occupations of graduates 




















whose whereabouts were 




















known:' 




















Water-related positions.. 


49.3 


50.3 


49.0 


47.4 


50.6 


55.3 


54.4 


65.5 


49.7 


Returned to school 


33.2 


30.0 


26.7 


29.0 


23.9 


34.3 


37.3 


30.4 


46.0 


Military service 


17.5 


19.7 


24.3 


23.6 


25.5 


10.4 


8.3 


4.1 


4.3 


Types of water-related agen- 




















cies in which graduates 




















were employed: 




















Pr.vate industry, etc 


33.7 


31.0 


32.2 


29.5 


34.0 


32.8 


29.6 


23.7 


33.8 


Federal 


28.9 


23.4 


26.5 


25.9 


24.9 


22.1 


23.9 


18.1 


17.7 


Stata 


20.8 


21.0 


20.2 


20.0 


20.2 


19.7 


22.7 


21.1 


19.3 


College and university... 


16.6 


18.6 


21.1 


24.6 


20.9 


25.4 


26.8 


32.1 


24.2 



1 Excluded from this table are those graduating whose status was not known or who were unemployed or working in 
other fields at the close of the year following graduation, 
i 1974 Annual Report of the Office of Water Research and Technology. 

(;. ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE PUBLIC LAW 88 :;:'.» PROGRAM 

Through fiscal year L974, about $108 million have been appropriated 
by Congress to support the Public Law 88 379 program. During (his 
same period, the uon Federal contributions have amounted to over $7>\ 
million. It is significant that, in the title I program, the States have 
contributed about $70 million, or about $45 million more than required 
by the act. This evidence of interest and willingness to assume respon- 



■ [bid., i). 59. 



103 

sibility by the States clearly marks the importance of this program to 
these governmental units. 

Results of the program are widespread and extend considerably be- 
yond the confines of research, training, and information transfer man- 
dated by the act. Eesearch productivity has been high, as evidenced by 
the fact that between one-fourth and one-third of all technical litera- 
ture in water resources has been produced as a result of this program, 
even though it receives less than 10 percent of the total Federal out- 
lays for water resources research (table IV). A sharp focus on the 
Nation's critical water problems has emerged and pioneering efforts 
in research on improvement of water planning methodology, mathe- 
matical modeling of water systems, land disposal of waterborne organic 
wastes, urban hydrology and urban water problems, and water-based 
recreation have been noted. Regional research has been stimulated and 
multidisciplinary research methodologies developed and put into 
practice. 

A significant increase in scientific attention to water problems has 
been a byproduct, and a substantially increased resource base of quali- 
fied manpower has emerged. Coordination of Federal research has im- 
proved and the dissemination and transfer of technical information is 
being given more attention, although funding for this phase of the 
program limits achievement. 

1. Creating a National Network of Centers for Water Resources 
Eesearch 

Perhaps the most significant accomplishment of the Public Law 
88-379 program has been the establishment of a competent network of 
water resources research institutes. These centers of expertise have 
galvanized the water research programs of the university community 
into a national problem-solving effort. A focus on national, regional 
and State problems has emerged. Cricital water problems are iden- 
tified, research priorities established, and research implemented to 
solve these problems. A direction and coordination of water research 
at all levels has developed. This provides for greater cost effectiveness 
and heightened efficiency. The institutes have acted as sources of in- 
formation for States, and have become active in disseminating infor- 
mation and the transfer of technology. Through formal and other 
linkages with State and Federal agencies and other groups and organi- 
zations, the institutes have achieved credibility and many of them are 
how identified as the State focus for water research planning and co- 
ordination. State and Federal agencies, the public, students, and 
faculty use the institutes as information centers on a wide variety of 
water resources problems. 

The institutes have matured under the allotment program, to the 
point where they are serving an effective role in the national water 
research effort. The lessons learned relative to energy and other crises 
point out that a strong and continuing research program may be the 
most effective way to identify problems before they become critical, 
and to develop solutions before they are needed. 

The allotment program has brought a stability to universitv re- 
sea rcli and acts as a catalyst for a coordinated and effective national 
program of research, training and information dissemination in the 



66-609- 



104 

water resources field. The continuity established through the Public 
Law 88-379 program is vital to a productive and timely research 
effort. This is in contrast with the "crash" approach to research once a 
crisis lias arisen. Such efforts are costly and often too little and too 
late. In the water resources field, the opportunity for research results 
to enter planning processes in the advance stages rather than to be- 
come fire fighting tools of action agencies now exists. 

The title I program has generated considerable non-Federal re- 
search support and lias stimulated interest in water problems at State 
and regional levels. 

J. I 7i8 tilling Objectivity Into Water Resources Research 

The State institutes provide an objective, interdisciplinary over- 
view of water problems in their composite social, political, economic, 
and legal setting. This is a valuable asset, since governmental agencies, 
profit-oriented private industries, and citizen's environmental organi- 
zations may have very different perceptions of the same problem. 

The university provides an atmosphere of free inquiry, insulated 
from special interest groups and the self-serving biases that sometimes 
appear in the intramural research of action agencies. The Public Law 
88-379 research program preserves scientific integrity, guarantees ob- 
jective comparisons, permits thoughtful challenges to accepted norms, 
and fosters innovation in problem solving. The program permits 
initiation of introspective research, which is not appropriate for mis- 
sion agencies to undertake. 

The fact that the Public Law 88-379 program serves all the water 
resources disciplines and not the mission of one agency exclusively 
provides greater credibility and freedom of choice in pursing needed 
research relative to planning, management, and various institutional 
aspects of perplexing water resources problems. The fact that the 
principal source of intellectual ideas is the university community has 
resulted in a fresh approach to many problems which have long been 
neglected or given short shrift or unimaginative treatment due to 
agency biases or traditions. 

3. Research 

Emphasis has been on problems related to water resources planning, 
effectiveness of institutional arrangements, ecological and social im- 
pacts of water resources development, water resources management, 
hydrologic systems, and urban water problems. 

The involvement of State universities improves public acceptability 
of research results, guarantees a better balance of research emphasis, 
and provides better opportunity to match needed expertise to par- 
ticular problems. 

The institutes have assisted State agencies through their research 
programs and are looked upon as the research arm of the State in sev- 
eral cases. Because of the expertise and administrative capability 
which the institutes have developed, numerous sources of Federal and 
non-Federal research funding have been tapped and directed toward 
comprehensive State and regional water research programs. Many in- 
stitute administer projects supported by NSF, EPA, Corps of 
Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, State and other agencies. The co 
ordination of research which results from this is a positive outcome of 
the program. 



105 

Encouraged by OWRT, the water research institutes have given 
special attention to regional assessments of water problems and to 
developing cooperative regional approaches to problem solving 
through research. Cooperative arrangements are, for the most part, 
"ad hoc'' in style, selecting the best talent from participating centers 
to form a team to address the problem of concern. Unlike most 
Federal regional research laboratories which have a narrow focus 
and rigid jurisdictional boundaries, cooperative arrangements among 
the institutes normally exist only for the life of the project. Coopera- 
tion between the institutes, river basin commissions, interagency basin 
committees and other regional groups has developed, and a more 
explicit coordination of research by the participating institute direc- 
tors has been another bj^product. 

i. Avoidance of Duplication in Research Efforts 

Through its research monitoring and WRSIC, OWRT has been 
able to minimize undesirable duplication of research effort. To as- 
sure success of this activity. OWRT : 

— requires proponents to consult the Water Resources Research 
Catalog to clarify any possible relationships between proposed 
and ongoing work ; 
— publishes selected abstracts and topical bibliographies ; 
— requires an exhaustive literature survey for each proposal ; 
— sends matching grants and title II proposals to appropriate 
outside Federal agencies for evaluation prior to OWRT 
approval ; 
— participates fully in the coordination work of the Committee 

on Water Resources Research ; 
— requires all allotment programs to be developed in consultation 

with leading water officials within the State ; 
— publishes an annual report listing all projects currently 
supported. 

5. Information Dissemination and Technology Transfer 

The broad concern of OWRT with water resources issues has led 
to the development of the Water Resources Scientific Information 
Center (WRSIC). This effective information service receives input 
from 13 centers of competence representing a spectrum of water re- 
sources areas. In addition, several Government agencies provide input. 
Over 83,000 entities are contained in the information retrieval system. 
The State institutes are actively engaged in a variety of programs 
to bridge the gap between research users and producers. Many stu- 
dents formerly associated with the Public Law 88-370 program have 
been employed by a variety of public and private organizations with 
planning, design, development and regulatory responsibilities and 
act as change agents. The authoritative and objective output of re- 
searchers is being tempered with techniques for information transfer 
to make research results more comprehensible and easier to imple- 
ment, The close working relationships between institute personnel 
and local, State and Federal action agencies and consulting firms and 
other practitioners helps to assure more effective dissemination and 
implementation of research results. 

The State institutes provide a considerable amount of technical 
advisory service to State and local government agencies. University 



106 

agricultural extension services, continuing education centers, and uni- 
versitywide extension services are cooperators with the water resources 
research institutes. This arrangement brings an enormous pool of tal- 
ent to the aid of the Federal water research program. 

Both WRSIC and the State institute programs in technology trans- 
fer have been less effective than they could be — not because of lack of 
interest or effort — but due to inadequate funding. 

G. Mam/power and Training 

The number of water resources scientists trained through the Public 
Law 83-379 program has been impressive. From 1965 to 1974. an aver- 
age of about 1.700 students has been supported by OWRT each year. 
Training of water scientists has been accomplished through association 
with active research projects, participation in research seminars, spe- 
cial short course^ and other programs. Many graduate students and 
other professionals would not have become involved in water-related 
work if it had not been for the Public Law 88-379 program. It is im- 
portant to note that the training of water resource scientists and en- 
gineers to meet the manpower needs of Government and private indus- 
try has been achieved as a nearly cost-free byproduct of the OWRT 
program. The availability of trained manpower produced by this pro- 
gram has likely played a role in averting water crises that were being 
predicted in the 1950's. 

The talents and skills of researchers have been strengthened by in- 
volvement in OWRT programs and entire institutions have been up- 
graded in teaching and research capabilities. This research program 
is the only significant Federal water resources research program 
which has a competent management team of advanced educators to 
train the new professionals who will be needed now and in the future. 

A more subtle outgrowth of the training program has been a lifting 
of the, intellectual level of discussion of water resources activities in 
the Nation. Many faculty as well as -Indents have been educated, and 
the product of this has been improved research and more informed 
decisionmaking. Documentation shows that prestigious studies such 
as those by the National Water Commission and the National Study 
Commission on Water Quality have been influenced by scientists 
trained in part through the Public Lav; 88-o79. program. 

; . ( oordinaiion 

While improved Federal agency research coordination (particu- 
larly within the Interior Department) has resulted from the Public 
379 program, the coordination of research conducted by most 

of the Nation's leading universities has been the greatest payoff. The 
fad thai OWRT must approve all project, (allotment, matching or 
other), and the fart that it publishes periodic abstracts of water re- 
search in progress and provides ibis to the centers, makes duplicative 
programs between States remote. The OWRT involvement in \\\^ Fed- 
eral [nteragency Committee on Water Resources Research, and its 
utilization of outside agency reviews of research proposals further 
serves to avoid duplication of efforts. Public Law 88 £79 has instilled 

more coherency in national water research and has given critical mass 

to fragmented water research programs, making them more ellicient 
and cost effective. 



107 

Researchers across the Xation have, by means of this program, be- 
come more interactive, and special activities such as the annual Water 
Resources Research Conference have brought the leaders of the water 
resources research community together more frequently. This has pro- 
moted a national program of water resources research, rather than the 
traditional fragmentation which has resulted from the uncoordinated 
funding of large collections of independent research projects. 

The Federal ties with State institutes provide a strong communica- 
tion channel for melding grass roots thinking with national perspec- 
tives. The institute network provides a blend of insight with political, 
social and institutional frameworks in which research results must be 
implemented. The institutes are aware of State and local goals and 
can articulate the right questions in the context of changing times and 
differing climatic and geographic settings. Recognition time is faster 
and more accurate as aided by valuable inputs from citizen advisory 
committees and State and local government officers. Thus, the univer- 
sity partnership brings added vision and perspective to complex water 
problems, assuring the Xation of a more accurate picture of reality. 
Political and intellectual distortions are minimized in this uni- 
versity-government interaction. 

In many States which are partners in river basin commissions or 
inter-agency basin committees, the water resources institutes have de- 
veloped a focus for coordination through these entities. Coordination 
of research at the regional level has been enhanced in this process, 
and more efficient use of research funds has resulted. 

The fact that a high degree of coordination of research has resulted 
from the Public Law 88-oT9 program is exemplified by this statement 
by Robert B. Russ, general manager of the Rhode Island State Water 
Resources Board : 

The Rhode Island Water Resources Board is working in close cooperation and 
coordination -with the Water Resources Research Center at the University of 
Rhode Island to encourage and support research effort in various water-related 
endeavors to the net effect that research results will be of immediate and general 
benefit to the public. Toward this objective, the Water Resources Board serves 
as a member <>f the State Advisory Board for the Water Resources Research 
Center to assist in formulating and guiding research efforts into areas of imme- 
diate concern to opera ling slate and local water agencies. 

#. Public Service 

The public service role of the State institutes lias expanded sig- 
nificantly during the 10 years of operation of the Public Law 88-379 
program. Many services, including the operation of information cen- 
ters, consultation, participation on citizens committees and advisory 
boards, news releases, TV programs, short courses, and others have 
been provided. The varied activities of the State institutes have helped 
raise the 'public consiousness concerning water resources problems 
and issues. This increased awareness has returned the favor in terms 
of a greater level of public support for both State and Federal pro- 
grams related to water resources research and information transfer. 

H. PROGRAM DEFICIENCIES 

Although the accomplishments of the Public Law 88-379 program 
are impressive, there is room for improvement and, in several areas, 
additional effort is indicated. 



108 

/. Funding 

During the period of performance of Public Law 88-379, appro- 
priations have significantly lagged behind authorized levels, except 
for section 100, prior to the increased authorizations provided for in 
1971 by Public Law 92-175. The 1971 amendments reflected a decision 
by the Congress to provide increased support for water research and 
to expand the overall program, principally in the areas of informa- 
tion dissemination and technology transfer and coordination. The 
mandate is there, but funding has not materialized. There has been 
a decrease in research productivity (due to inflation) and tight con- 
straints on the development of the new and expanded programs. If it 
had not been for the support provided the institutes by the States and 
universities and the ingenuity of the institute directors, the results 
would have been disastrous. How long the program can maintain its 
momentum and enthusiasm without appropriate Federal funding is 
a subject of conjecture, but the effects will surety be seen within 2 or 3 
years at most. For the relatively small Federal investment in this 
program, it has attained a stature and potential for warding off future 
crises in the water resource field that should be recognized and 
strengthened. If a similar program related to energy research had 
been developed 10 or 20 years ago. the problems facing the Nation to- 
day might never have materialized, or at least could have been damp- 
ened in magnitude. 

.!. Program Planning and Development 

(a) Federal. — Since the beginning of operation of OWRR. goals 
have been established to assure compliance with the law and to pro- 
vide a direction for the program. Priority areas of research identified 
by the Department of the Interior and COWRR have been used to set 
the pattern for title II research and. to a lesser degree, title I research. 
Of her object ives. such as information dissemination and training, have 
been met by establishment of TVRSIC and the encouragement of in- 
stitute directors to develop technology transfer programs and to asso- 
ciate students with research projects. 

The OWKT director and his stall' have made considerable progress 
in moving toward object ives. but the development by OWRT of a clear 
national strategy for research has not emerged. The mission of In- 
terior is important, but a broader view is needed. The guidance pro- 
vided by COWRR lias also been of value, but determination of the 
amount of research needed on specific problem areas, both current and 
future, and an attempt to assess future research priorities, based on 
emerging or forecast problems, lias received little attention. Deter- 
mination of how limited funds should be allocated within broad prior- 
ity area- has not been adequately addressed. While priorities have 
been identified, they relate mostly to current issues, ami there is no 
real mechanism for assuring opl ima] allocat ion of funds. Priori! ies are 
circulated to potential researchers to guide their proposal designs, 
but there is no program to earmark specific funds for a given need or 
to Solicit resea rch indirect fashion to satisfy this need. 

The OWKT stall" have varied backgrounds and experience, and 
there ha- been little uniformity in the way they have interfaced with 
the State institutes. Their attention has been directed mostly to the 



109 

routine of reviewing research proposals and other administrative 
duties, and they have provided State directors with minimal guidance 
in terms of program planning, development and management. The 
director of OWRT should give this matter careful review and develop 
a policy which would require his office to assign a higher priority to the 
development of a more highly coordinated and more sharply focused 
network of State water resources research institutes. 

The OWRT-institute program is a partnership, but until the Uni- 
versities Council on Water Resources (UCOWR) and the National 
Association of Water Institute Directors (XAWID) pressed this issue 
(1974), the operation was mostly one sided, with OWRT doing little 
listening. The State directors are desirous of developing effective pro- 
grams, and the infusion of their ideas at the Washington level has 
merit. 

More attention to program planning and development and less em- 
phasis on management and administrative detail would increase the 
effectiveness of the State institutes and strengthen the status of 
OWRT as the principal vehicle for guiding the Nation's water re- 
search effort. 

(b) State. — There are variations in the quality of the institutes 
which are reflected mostly by the relative importance of water in 
each State, and in the stature accorded the institute and its director 
by the host university. Institute directors are assigned varying levels 
of responsibility to their institutes, ranging from a low of 10 percent 
to full time, with the average being about 55 percent. It is difficult 
to see how State and regional coordination, program planning, pro- 
curement of funding, participation in State and regional water pro- 
grams of users, and other vital functions of an institute director can 
be performed if he is primarily a teacher or researcher. Since OWRT 
has no policy on this, the States have been left mainly to their own 
designs. 

The success of the Public Law 8S-379 program rests heavily on the 
philosophy and efforts of the institute directors. In recognition of 
this, the Director of OWRT should give more consideration to ways 
in which he can encourage more uniformity in State institutes and 
provide host institution administrators with more guidance in pre- 
scribing directors' qualifications and in defining the role of their 
institutes. 

3. Research 

Estimated water demands and projections of future water problems 
indicate expanded research and technological development to be 
essential to the well-being of the Nation. The Public Law 88-379 
program has done a good job of identifying needed research and 
filling gaps in agency programs. A greater effort in determining the 
resources needed to fulfill research needs and how these resources 
should be allocated is necessary. More direction and a higher degree 
of coordination of the research program are essential. Greater involve- 
ment of user groups in research planning and implementation should 
bo promoted. Relative to regional research, input from river basin 
commissions. Federal Interstate Commissions, and State agencies 
and institutions having water- and land-related interests should be 



110 

actively sought and incorporated in the research planning phase. 
The need far more funding has already been pointed out and is 
critical. 

4. Information Dissemination and Technology Transfer 
Information dissemination and technology transfer programs are 

largely the responsibility of WRSIC and the State institutes. Under 
the reorganization, a new assistant director for technology transfer 
has been named to coordinate efforts in the latter area. His role is in 
the formulative stages and will not be discussed here, but the com- 
ments are applicable, in part, to his office. 

(a) The water resources scientific information program. — OWRT 
is to be commended for the WRSIC program. It ntly run and 

effective, but there are major areas in which improvement can be 
made. More attention should be given to broadening the array of 
. The system is not being used to its full capabilities, and con- 
sideration should be given to the feasibility of equipping each of the 
institutes with a WRSIC terminal. If a meaningful output is to be 
obtained from the system, the complete cooperation of other bureaus 
and offices within the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, EPA, and other Government agencies engaged 
in water resources research must be obtained. Greater effort should 
be expended in obtaining inputs from State water agencies, as well 
as from water research centers. Considerable advancement has been 
made in the WRSIC System, but many agencies do not realize that 
the system exists. A program of education may be needed to advise 
the various Federal agencies, State agencies, and institutions of the 
scope and extent of the services offered. 

The 1974 Advisory Panel to OWRT stated that WRSIC could be 
one of the most important elements in assuring the success of OWRT, 
and recommended that the director initiate a study to determine the 
requirements for making WRSIC a more effective program. 20 It was 
noted that the study should address the question of funding neces- 
sary to permit various levels of program effectiveness, and should 
consider how WRSIC could be expanded to become a focal point for 
all information sources in water resources. The ability to establish 
WRSIC terminals at each State institute is ruled out unless a substan- 
tial increase in funding is obtained. The fact that information serv- 
ices are used if they are convenient is a key issue. Terminals should 
be available to the institutes if a real payoff from the system is to 
result. 

(lj) Institute programs. — Most State institutes have initiated some 
form of technology transfer program, but the effectiveness and extent 
of most have been seriously curtailed due to lack of funds. This, more 
than any other issue, stands as B roadblock to the success of this 
phase of the program. The following statement, which appeared in 
the 1074 Annual Report of OWRT. supports this contention. 27 



• TJ.8. Department of the Interior. Office of Water Research and Technoli 
to tin of t Tm Interior of the Water Resources Research Adrlaory Panel." Wash- 

D , Mar. 17, in::.. | 
1 Department of the Int< e of Water Resources Research. "1974 Annual 

Report," Washington, D C 1974, p 164 



Ill 

Timely and effective dissemination of information produced by the organized 
institute research efforts represents a general need in most programs. Expecta- 
tions of improved Federal funding for information programs raised by 1972 
amendments to the legislation governing OWRT have not materialized. Never- 
theless, the California Center, using limited State of California funds, continues 
to improve information dissemination activities through the Archives program 
located on the Berkeley and Los Angeles Campuses of the University, and the 
liaison activities of a full-time information officer. Increased Federal funding is 
needed to bring this activity into full fruition. 

5. Coordination* Consultation and Collaboration 

The 1974 OWKT Advisory Panel stated that OWKT should place 
heavy emphasis on coordination and information exchange. 28 It noted 
that OWKT should play a major role in coordinating water research 
activities within the Department of the Interior, and that the long- 
range role of OWRT in identifying research needs should be based 
upon the exchange of information and the planning of research activ- 
ities among all of the Federal agencies concerned with water. OWRT 
responsibility for coordinating State water research activities is 
clearly stated in title I. 

OWRT and the institutes have accepted their coordinating roles 
and have made good progress along these lines. It is probably true 
that, for the dollars invested, this is the most highly coordinated 
program the Federal Government has ever known. 

Improvements can be made in the coordination of Interior agency 
research and Federal agency research in general, although the latter 
is not the direct responsibility of OWRT. The ability to broadly 
coordinate Federal efforts in an effective manner will require an 
authority and stature that OWRT does not presently hold. 

At the State and regional levels, the institute directors must more 
actively build and maintain strong working relationships with ap- 
propriate State, local, and Federal agencies, and with other units. 
The performance in this respect has been somewhat sketchy, and is 
tied to the perspective of the institute director, his status, and other 
associated factors. Further guidance and assistance by the director 
of OWRT and his staff would help institutes with weaker coordinat- 
ing machinery to develop more effective programs. 

6. Manpower and Training 

The Public Law 88-379 program is the last major source of support 
for manpower development within university structures in the United 
States. Active association of faculty and students with research proj- 
ects builds expertise, attracts scientists into the water resources field, 
and through the employment opportunities offered students, develops 
a continuing manpower base upon which governmental agencies, 
industry and private enterprise may draw. 

Achievements in training through the Public Law 88-379 programs 
have been notable, but could be extended if the title I research pro- 
gram were funded at the authorized level. Because the training 
program is so strongly tied to the research program, comments on 
the latter are also applicable. 



2 *T T .S. Department of the Interior. Office of Water Research and Technology. "Report 
to the Secretary of the Interior of the Water Resources Research Advisory Panel," Wash- 
ington, D.C., Mar. 17, 1975, p. 5. 



66-609—76- 



V. Reorganization Into ax Office of Water Kesearch 
and Technology 

On July 26, 1974, by order of Secretary of the Interior Morton, the 
Office of Water Resources Research and the Office of Saline Water 
(OSW) were merged into a new Office of Water Research and Tech- 
nology (OWRT), to be effective November 30, 1974. 



A. ORGANIZATION AND STAFFING 



The new organizational structure is given in figure 7. A major shift 
from the old OWRR structure is the establishment of four assistant 
directorships in the areas of research, program planning and evalua- 
tion, technology transfer, and saline water conversion. 



INTERAGENCY 

WATER RESEARCH 

COORDINATOR 



DIRECTOR 



ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR 



OFFICE OF WATER RESEARCH 
ANT) TECHNOLOGY 



ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 
PROGR^rTLANNTNG 

AND EVALUATION 



ASSISTANT PI RECTOR 

TECHNOLOGY 

TRANSFER 



ADMINISTRATIVE 
MANAGER 



CONTRACTS AND 
GRANTS MANAGEMENT 



MANAGEMENT 
SERVICES DIVISION 



ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 
RESEARCH 



MANAGER 

WATER 

RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC 

INFORMATION CENTER 



ASSISTANT DIRECTOR 

SAL I NT WATER 

CONVERSION 



BI0L0GIG\L SCIENCES 
DIVISION 



HYDROLOCIC SCIENCES 
, DIVISION 



PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY 
DIVISION 



MEMBRANE PROCESSES 
DIVISION 



THERMODYNAMIC 
PROCESSES DIVISION- 



FACILITIES ENGINEERING 

DESIGN AND 
CONSTRUCTION DIVISION 



PLANNING SCIENCES 
DIVISION 



ENGINEERING SYSTEMS 
DIVISION 



Figure 7 
(113) 



114 

The functions of OWRT are described in the Department of the 
Interior Departmental Manual, part III, chapter 6, and are sum- 
marized below. 1 

1. Functions 

The Office of Water Research and Technology (OWRT), under the 
supervision of the Assistant Secretary — Land and Water Resources, 
performs water research and development activities (through con- 
tracts and grants) and related functions vested in the Secretary of the 
Interior under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964 (Public Law 
88-379, as amended), under the Saline Water Conversion Act of 1971 
(Public Law 92-60, as amended), and under the joint resolution 
(Public Law 85-883. as amended). In fulfilling its responsibilities, the 
Office carries out the following general functions: 

(a) Administration of a cooperative program with Water Re- 
sources Research Institutes designated by the States under title I, 
Public Law 88-379, for research, investigations, and experi- 
ments — as well as the training of scientists through such re- 
search — directed toward solving water and water-related 
problems of the Department, the States, and the hydrological 
regions of the Nation. 

(b) Development, formulation, and assessment of water-related 
methods, procedures, institutions, technologies equipment, and 
facilities. 

(c) Research and development of methods, equipment, and 
processes for the conversion of saline water for beneficial use 
and minimization of environmental impacts of brine discharges. 

(d) Management of the Water Resources Scientific Informa- 
tion Center, for the acquisition and dissemination of informa- 
tion about ongoing and completed water resources research and 
technology development. 

(e) Performance of Federal interagency water resources re- 
search coordination functions for the Interagency Committee on 
Water Resources Research (COWRR), under the Federal Council 
for Science and Technology (FCST), including but not limited 
to the requirements of section 305. Public Law 88-379 (42 U.S.C. 
1961C-5). 

2. Organization 

The Oflice of Water Research and Technology is headed by a direc- 
tor, who i.- under the genera] supervision of the Assistant Secretary — 
Land and Water Resources. The Office has the following organiza- 
tional components. 

(a) Office of the Director. The Oflice of the Director cons 
of the Director and the Associate Director, who are responsible 
for activities in such areas as policy development, direction of 
research and development programs, and congressional relations. 
(I)) Interagency water r<s<<ircJi coordinator. Under the 
general supervision of the Director, the interagency water v^- 
searcn coordinator is responsible Un- recommendation and imple- 
mentation of Federal interagency coordination Functions. 

1 T'.s. nppnrtmpnt of the Interior. Dopnrtmontni Manual, P.-irt in, Chapter '). Office 
of Water aeeearcn and Technology, Washington, D.C., October 1974. 



115 

(c) Assistant Director — Program planning and evaluation. 
Under the general supervision of the director, and working with 
the technical advice and assistance of the Assistant Directors — Re- 
research, saline water conversion, and technology transfer, the 
Assistant Director — Program planning and evaluation, is re- 
sponsible for activities in overall planning and evaluation of office 
programs ard budgets. 

(d) Assistant Director — Technology transfer. Under the gen- 
eral supervision of the Director, and with the technical advice 
and assistance of the Assistant Directors — Research and saline 
water conversion, the Assistant Director — Technology transfer, 
is responsible for assessing and interpreting OWRT research re- 
sults with respect to identified water-related problem areas. 

(e) Administrative manager. Under the general supervision of 
the Director, the administrative manager is responsible for in- 
suring the effective management of contracts and grants and of 
other administrative services for the office. 

(f) Assistant Director — Research. Under the general supervi- 
sion of the Director, the Assistant Director — Research, is responsi- 
ble for the technical management of a water research program, 
as authorized under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964. 

(g) Assistant Director — Saline water conversion. Under the 
general supervision of the Director, the Assistant Director — 
saline water conversion, is responsible for the technical manage- 
ment of a research and development program, as authorized under 
the Saline Water Conversion Act of 1971. 

(h) Manager — Water Resources Scientific Information Center. 
The Manager — Water Resources Scientific Information Center, 
is responsible for managing and maintaining the Water Resources 
Scientific Information Center (WRSIC), which serves as the 
designated Federal center for scientific and technical information 
in water resources. 

3. Advisory Boards and Panels 

In addition to the OWRT Advisory Panel previously described, a 
new advisory committee to the Interior Department with relevance to 
OWRT programs was formed on April 15, 1965. 

Water Research and Education Advisory Committee ( WREAC) . — 
An agreement between the Department of the Interior (USDI) and 
the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Col- 
leges (NASULGC) established the Water Research and Education 
Advisory Committee. The agreement acknowledged that institutions 
of higher education have become increasingly involved in water 
resources research and education, a major field of interest and respon- 
sibility for USDI, and that the sharing of responsibility for publicly 
supported water research and technology efforts is directed toward 
various common goals. "While recognizing that substantial progress 
had been made toward the attainment of objectives, it was pointed out 
that this had been done to a considerable degree without benefit of 
adequate coordination and consultation. The Department and the par- 
ticipating universities had, for the most part, responded as individual 
institutions, with a minimum of communication and joint effort. To 
provide a better means of planning and more closely coordinating 
essential water resources efforts, the U.S. Department of the Interior 



116 

(USDI) and NASULGC agreed to work jointly in this vital field, 
through the establishment of a joint Water Research and Education 
Advisory Committee (WREAC). 

Objectives. — To provide advice and develop recommendations for 
policy with respect to planning, evaluating, coordinating, and sup- 
porting long-range research programs; to define pressing water 
resource problem areas; to establish water research priorities; and to 
delineate the appropriate areas of responsibility of Federal and State 
agencies in carrying out water research and training programs. 
Scojh . — The advisory committee serves the following purposes : 
— It provides a means for the exchange of information and ideas 
on water science among USDI agencies. State universities, and 
grant colleges. 
— It serves as a forum for: (<7)The analysis of existing and pro- 
posed programs, with emphasis on program development; (b) 
the development of recommendations on policy matters and pro- 
gram activities; and (c) effective mobilization of manpower and 
other resources. 
Description of Duties. — The committee is solely advisory in nature, 
and provides a joint effort, directed toward attainment of the follow- 
Lroals: 
— To help solve national, regional nnd local problems concerning 

the productive and efficient use of the water resource. 
— To provide scientific expertise to Federal, State and local gov- 
ernment agencies, private organizations and individuals. 
— To provide scientific expertise and research support to water 

programs that relate to foreign relations. 
— To provide scientific competence for teaching and to make 
available increased research opportunities for graduate students. 
— To support the rapid dissemination of water research findings 
and new technologies to the water resource community and to 
the general public. 
Committee Membership. — The committee functions under cochair- 
men appointed by the Secretary of the Interior and the president of 
the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Col- 
. The committee includes an equal number of representatives <>f 
I rS I )] and NASI hLG< % t () provide for and attain a balanced member- 
ship. Membership on the committee is as follows: 

USDI (7) v VSULGC (7) 

ant Secretary, jaw Resources 4 representatives of NASULGC : Chalr- 
(Co-Chairman) ; man of the NASULGC Water Com- 

lnittee (Co-Chairman) and 'A others 

Director, Office of Water Research ami designated by NASULGC to include a 

Technology ; President or Chancellor <>f a signifi< 

cant Water Science* University, Vice 
Commissioner, Bnrean of Reclamation ; President or Dean of Research or 
Director, Bureau of Land Management Graduate studies of a significant 

water sciences university; 

Director, Office of Land i se and Water chairman of the National Association 
Planning; of Water Research institute Direc- 

tors: 
Director, U.S. Geological Survey: 2 representatives <»f UCOWB: (Chair- 

Director, Water Resources Council. man and one other representative). 



117 



B. PROGRAMS AND DIRECTIONS 



1. Program Objective 

The objective of the program of the Office of Water Research and 
Techonolgy (OWRT) is to develop new understanding and knowledge 
needed to solve or mitigate identified and selected high priority water 
resources problems existing in the several States and hydrographieal 
regions of the Nation, and to continue the development of desalina- 
tion processes. To achieve this objective, OWRT plans to carry for- 
ward a combination of complementary and coordinated research, de- 
velopment, scientific information dissemination, and technology trans- 
fer activities. OWRT will utilize, by means of grants and contracts, 
the outstanding scientific and technical competence that is available 
in educational institutions, private firms, foundations, and other 
organizations. 2 

2. Fiscal Year 1976 Program Summary 

The fiscal year 1976 OWRT program includes the following 
elements : 

{a) Research. — 1. Research supporting the Department's mission 
and current objectives, including : 

— Promotion of water use efficiencies ; 
— Protection of the water-based environment; 
— Improving water resources planning and management; 
— Solving of energy-related problems involving water considera- 
tions; and 
— Aiding in Indian self-determination through improved water 
development and management on reservations. 

2. Research to solve or mitigate other critical water-related prob- 
lems of the States and regions of the Nation, as determined largely 
through the "problem and research needs identification program" 
initiated by OWRT, in cooperation with State research institutes 
and leading water officials within the several States. 

3. Research in support of saline water conversion. 

(b) Technology development. — 1. Saline water conversion, with 
principal emphasis on conversion of sea water by membrane and 
freezing processes. 

2. A new program initiative, technology assessment and research 
transfer, to assure that the findings and determinations of original 
and innovative problem-solving research efforts are interpreted and 
developed to the stage where they can be used for practical 
application. 

_ (c) Scientific information center operations. — Emphasis is on pro- 
viding a larger volume of user services. 

3. Pfogram Management 

An improved and structured program for "water problem and 
research needs identification" has been developed and placed in use. 
With the full cooperation and participation of State institutes and 
their collaborators, this program has identified and will continue to 
identify, more explicitly than was heretofore possible, the most criti- 

2 U.S. Department of the Interior. "Budget Justifications, Fiscal Year 1976," Office 
of Water Research and Technology, Washington, D.C., p. 1. 



118 

cal water research needs of the several States and hydrographieal 
regions of the Nation. It is expected to significantly increase the cost 
effectiveness of the OWRT R. & D. program and to have a beneficial 
impact on the coordination of research at the regional. State, and 
national levels. 

Jf.. Development of Long-Range Goals and Objectives 

Effective research management implies that a research program 
should be coordinated and continually responsive to the current and 
long-term needs. 

The Office of Water Research and Technology (OWRT) has been 
developing methods and procedures for improving the management 
and interagency coordination of water resources research. With the 
cooperation of the directors of the water resources research institutes, 
supported under title I of the Water Resources Research Act (P.L. 
88-379), these procedures were tested and, although still being im- 
proved, have been shown to be useful for research planning and inter- 
agency coordination purposes. Elements of these procedures were 
adapted and utilized successfully for intra-agency research program 
coordination within the Department of the Interior in the fall of 
1974. The responsibility for consequent actions was assigned to the 
Assistant Secretary, Land and Water Resources, with OWRT as the 
lead agency. 

Beginning with the 1977 budget planning process, the Department 
is setting goals and objectives for water R. & D., to guide its agencies 
in developing their research programs. Companion to this is the 
design of a "Water Resources Research and Development Manage- 
ment Procedure." 



VI. Alternatives for Increased Effectiveness and Improved 

Coordination 

In this section, options for change are presented, and some linkages 
of OWKT with current or proposed institutions are discussed as pos- 
sible mechanisms for strengthening or broadening the scope of the 
organization. The need to coordinate OWET's research program with 
the missions of other related organizations is clear. 

A. recommendations of the national water commission 

In June 1973, the National Water Commission (NWC) completed 
its assessment of national water policy. Included in its report were sev- 
eral recommendations on the Federal water research program and its 
administration. 1 The Commission's report focused on the organiza- 
tional aspects of Federal water research, and it emphasized (1) The 
need to develop closer ties between research and planning; and (2) 
research and development to increase usable water supplies and to 
treat growing volumes of wastes. The Commission did not attempt 
to review the performance of existing research agencies or to outline 
a total Federal water research program. 

The Commission found that reliance on agency R. & D. programs 
to support their missions, with OWRT filling gaps as they became 
apparent, had been successful in the past, but it was concerned about 
several issues. First, the Commission questioned the ability of the 
fragmented research efforts of individual agencies to provide the 
needed capability to carry the Nation through the latter part of 
the 20th century. Second, concern was expressed over the amount of 
research which was pertinent to agencies with planning and manage- 
ment functions. The third issue was related to the difficulty of mission- 
oriented agencies to maintain a broad outlook. The tendency has 
been to focus on immediate problems, often in a narrow or biased 
context. 

At the time the NWC completed its study, 21 Federal agencies 
were engaged in water research and development through in-house and 
extramural programs. Federal water resources research programs 
include agency mission research, Earth-science research and surveys, 
research grant programs, and "big ticket" research to develop new 
technologies. Chief examples of the latter are the former Office of 
Saline Water program in the Department of the Interior, and the 
weather modification program of the Bureau of Reclamation. 2 

Research conducted by the Federal agencies was found by the Com- 
mission to be good, in general, but it was noted that: (1) Mission- 

1 National Water Commission. "Water Policies for the Future. Final Report to the 
President and the Congress of the United States," Washington, D.C., June 1973. p. 533. 

2 Ibid., p. 533. 

(119) 



120 

oriented research has a tendency to focus on specific areas and to 
pursue these beyond the point of diminishing returns: (2) mission re- 
search tends to be oriented toward "hardware," with Studies on en- 
vironmental and social impact receiving little attention: and (3) 
funds for mission research are often the first to be cut when budgets 
are tight. a 

As a result of its analyses, the NWC recommended that the Water 
■aires Research Act of 1064 be amended to remove the stipulation 
that title II projects should be directed toward the mission of the De- 
partment of the Interior and that an Office of Water Technology 
(OWT) be established "to direct an effective, balanced research and 
development program and to assist planning agencies in technology 
assessment and innovation. 4 The programs of the Office of Saline 
Water, the weather modification activities of the National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration, the precipitation augmentation and geo- 
thermal research and development programs of the Bureau of Recla- 
mation, the water research activities of the Environmental Protection 
Agency, and the programs of OWRK, would be transferred to the 
new OWT. The Commission recommended that, to manage the water 
research program and to coordinate research efforts with ongoing 

• supply and use activities, OWT should be characterized by three 
distinct activities: 5 

I 1 i Carrying on a systematic examination of technological trends to forecast 
the direction of technological developments, both those in the water held and 
those in related fields, which will impinge on water supplying and water using 
activities; <2> providing assistance to planning agencies so that they in turn 
may draw their plans so as to take advantage of technologies that are favorable 
and to minimize the adverse effects of others; and (3) budgeting and carrying 
forward a broadly conceived and balanced research and development program. 

The Commission noted that, although the several existing mission- 
oriented organizations have served their purposes well within the 
limited fields in which they operate, research activities should serve 
broad objectives, as well as fulfilling particular agency needs. Due to 
their limited fields, the Commission felt that mission-oriented agen- 
ices had lost perspective regarding broad objectives of water research, 
and as a result, there a ppea fed to be considerable merit to establishing 
an Office of Water Technology. This office, to be housed in the Depart- 
ment of the Interior, would assume "fragmented'' agency research 
programs, such as weather modification, as well as the mission and 
function- of the Office of Water Resources Research. It would also 
emphasize research on urban storm water control, underwater and 
offshore aqueducts, and other new area-: 

The complete recommendations of the NWC relative to water re- 
source.- research are : 7 

(1) Tii<- Water Resources Council should, through the exercise of authority 
granted to it under the W;it.T Resources Planning Act : 

* a t Direct thai water resources planning studies include an assessment 
of research needed to support planning objectives and a recommended re- 
search program to develop the scientific and technological base necessary to 
cojm' wit h future problems. 



8 [bid., 


PF 


. 583- 




4 [bid., 


p. 






" [bid., 


p- 


3 as. 




• [hid., 


P 


587. 




Mhl.l., 


P. 


537. 





121 

(b) Review planning reports for needed research as part of the customary 
WRC review to aid the Council in preparing annually an assessment of 
needed research with specific priority recommendations to support the ob- 
jectives of the Water Resources Planning Act. 

(c) Develop guidelines for field planning entities to assist in reflecting 
technological impacts in both short- and long-range water resources planning. 

(2) The research program of the Office of Saline Water, the weather modifica- 
tion activities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 
weather modification and geothermal resources program of the Bureau of Recla- 
mation, and research on wastewater reuse technology of the Environmental Pro- 
tection Agency should be transferred to a new Office of Water Technology in the 
Department of the Interior. Additionally, this new office should absorb the func- 
tions of the Office of Water Resources Research and should maintain an up-to- 
date state-of-the-art assessment of new technologies to assist planners and de- 
cision makers in the development and evaluation of water management 
alternatives. 

(3) The Committee on Water Resources Research which has functioned as an 
arm of the Federal Council for Science and Technology should be reconstituted 
as a committee of the Water Resources Council. 

B. RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WATER RESOURCES COUNCIL AXD TIIE 
RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS 

The OWRT is responsible for supplementing present programs for 
water research. In meeting this responsibility, it functions across a 
wide spectrum of issues. In its coordinating capacity, it is expected to 
work with a host of both Federal and State agencies. COWRR (1966) 
and, more recently, the National Water Commission (1973), have 
identified research related to planning as being of very high priority. 
OWRT has directed much of its attention to this area, and because of 
the implications, its research output is of significance to the entire 
water and related land resources community. 

Since the Water Resources Council (WRC) has broad responsi- 
bility in the water resources planning field, and since it acts to coordi- 
nate planning at the national, regional, and State levels, it has a cer- 
tain commonality with the outlook and objectives of OWRT. A na- 
tional water resources planning program, coupled with a broad-gaged 
research arm. is worth considering. At the least, a high degree of co- 
ordination and intercommunication between WRC and OWRT seems 
desirable. 

The options here are the following: 

1. To follow the informal coordination approach currently in 
evidence : 

2. To formalize and define the nature of coordination and co- 
operation through an appropriate legislative change ; 

3. To assign the functions of OWRT directly to the WRC. 
Option (3) should be seriously considered only if some changes in 

the authority of the WRC are made. Specifically, unless the Chairman 
of WRC achieves an independent status and the organization is given 
proper authority and recognition such as would occur if WRC were 
placed in the executive office, more harm than good could result from 
moving OWRT. Problems of coordination and implementation of 
plans conceived under Public Law 89-80 would carry over to OWRT, 
and it would be in a weaker position relative to some agencies than is 
c urren tly the case. A further caution is related to the mission of 
OWRT. If it became a part of WRC, it should still focus on the entire 



122 

spectrum of water research needs, and not become simply a supporting 
mechanism for the planning role of WRC. 

There are hazards in the combination of these two organizations, 
but given that WRC is strengthened, the merits deserve consideration. 
In any event, coordination betwen the two organizations should be 
strengthened, and a formal mechanism for this would provide greater 
assurance of success. 

It should also be noted that the OTVRT regional groups have es- 
tablished irood working relationships with the several river basin com- 
missions (RBC's) and. to a lesser degree, with interagency committees 
and interstate compact commissions. An extension of RBC's to cover 
the entire Nation would provide a uniform base for State-Federal 
cooperation in regional research, but the coverage which already exists 
is substantial and the cooperative ties between the RBC ? s and OTVRT 
regional groups deserve fostering. 

C. RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER EXISTING OR PROPOSKb IXSTITl Hi 

1. Department of Energy and Natural Resour 

During the Xixon administration, the concept of a Department of 
Energy and Natural Resources was proposed. While no action on this 
has been taken, such a department might be a logical home for OWRT. 
The organization would likely have a broad mandate in the natural re- 
sources and energy areas and. in this respect, would remove some of the 
departmental biases which OWRT is now subject to. The utility of 
this combination is hard to judge without a knowledge of the composi- 
tion and mission of the new department, but it would be worth con- 
sidering if the concept becomes a reality. 

2. Office of Science and Technology Policy 

On November 6, L975, II. R. 10230 wa I by the House and 

referred to appropriate committees of the Senate for consideration. 
The act would provide for the establishment of an Office of Science 
and Technology Policy (OSTP) in the Executive Office of the Presi- 
dent. OSTP would assist the President in coordination of the Na- 
tion's scientific endeavors, review and make recommendations on sci- 
ence policy, and have an overall science assessment and planning func- 
tion. A Federal Science and Technology Survey Committee would be 
appointed to : 

"Survey, examine and analyze tiio overall context <»f the Federal Bdence and 
technology effort Including missions, goals, personnel, funding, organization, 
facilit Lee and activities in general." Among other things, it would consider need's 
for "organizational reform, Including Institutional realignmenl designed t<> place 
Federal agencies Whose missions are primarily or solely devoted to scientific 
and technological research and development, and those agencies primarily or 
solely concerned with fuels, energy and materials, within a single Cabinet- 
level department." 

If the act [g passed by the Senate and signed by the President, it will 
open the door to further consideral ion of a Department of Energy ami 
Nal ural Resources, or some similar s< ructure. The impact of this leiris- 
lat ion could have Ear-reaching effects on OWRT in terms of its aline- 
ment, and would ai least add a linkage in the research planning and 
dinating pro I ( haJ office. 



123 

3. River Study Centers 

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972 
(Public Law 92-500) provide, in section 104(s), that>— 

The Administrator is authorized to make grants to one or more institutions 
of higher education (regionally located and to be designated as "River Study 
Centers") for the purpose of conducting and reporting on inter-disciplinary 
studies on the nature of river systems, including hydrology, biology, ecology, 
economies, the relationship between river uses and land uses, and the effects of 
development within river basins on river systems and on the value of water 
resources and water-related activities. No such grant in any fiscal year shall 
exceed $1,000,000. 

This provision has never been implemented but, if funded, could 
become directly competitive with the Public Law 88-379 program and 
significantly increase chances for overlap in function and duplication 
of efforts. The regional groups of Public Law 88-379 institutes could 
perform the functions of the proposed river study centers without the 
need for additional and costly administrative machinery. It is unfor- 
tunate that section 104 (s) makes no reference to the Public Law 88- 
379 institutes. A formal requirement to coordinate the two programs 
might logically be imposed, and legislative changes to consolidate the 
two programs or to eliminate the authority for river study centers 
would be worth considering. Problems of coordination and overlap 
are perhaps the most serious obstacles to effective water resources 
planning and research and the proliferation of duplicative programs 
by the Congress has not decreased this problem. 

4-. Environmental Research Centers 

In January of 1975, H.R. 35 was introduced in the House of Repre- 
sentatives. This bill would amend the National Environmental Policy 
Act of 1969, " in order to encourage the establishment of, and to assist, 
State and regional environmental research centers." 

In section 302 (a) of the act, on policy and purposes, it is stated that : 

It is the policy of the Congress to support basic and applied research, develop- 
ment, planning, management, education and other activities necessary to main- 
tain and improve the quality of the environment through the establishment of 
environmental research centers, in cooperation with and among the States, and 
thereby to achieve a more adequate program of environmental protection and 
improvement within the States, regions, and Nation pursuant to the policies 
and goals established in Titles I and II of this Act. It is hereby recognized that 
research, development, planning, management and education in environmental 
subjects are necessary to establish an environmental balance in local, State 
and regional areas, to assure the Nation of an adequate environmental research 
program. 

As in the case of the river study centers, there is an element of com- 
mon function between the proposed environmental centers and the 
water resources research institutes. While the mission of the environ- 
mental centers encompasses a broader field of research, there would 
undoubtedly be a significant area of overlap. There is no provision 
in H.R. 35 to insure coordination and cooperation with the estab- 
lished Public Law 88-379 institue programs. Some formal require- 
ment of this type is essential if effective coordination and 
cost-effectiveness are to occur. In the absence of a statutory mandate, 
cooperation would be highly tenuous and mostly a matter of indi- 
vidual choice. One option would be to expand the scope of existing 
Public Law 88-379 institutes to include the functions provided for 



124 

by II. R. ?>.*>. This boars consideration at a timo when Congress must 
consider whether development of multiple centers, each designed for 
a specific purpose, hut in fact dealing witli many common problems. 
• best approach to be taken. In any event, the research activities 
of the proposed environmental centers should be closely coordinated 
with those of the Public Law 88-379 institutes. 

5. Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) 

Development, conversion and distribution of energy is ultimately 
linked with water resources. Conservation, proper management, utili- 
zation and distribution of the water supply rises to a new dimension 
of importance in association with total energy production. 

ERDA was established in October 1974. by the Enenrv Reorgani- 
sation Act of 1974, Public Law 9^438 (88 Stat. 1233). which 
abolished the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and divided its 
functions between ERDA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
( NRC I. 8 The major objective of this legislation was the creation of a 
comprehensive, independent energy research and development agency 
to play the leading Federal role in the balanced and speedy develop- 
ment of various energy production techniques. It was also an im- 
portant purpose of the act to separate the research and developmental 
functions of the AEC for nuclear power generation from the regula- 
tory functions of that Agency. 

General functions of ERDA include: 

(a) Exercising central responsibility for policy planning, co- 
ordination, support and management of research and develop- 
ment programs for all energy sources, including assessment of 
and policy planning for long-range energy research and 
development needs: 

(b) Conducting and encouraging research and development of 
extraction, conversion, storage, transmission and utilization phases 
of all energy sources : and 

( c) Encouraging and conducting R. & I), in energy conservation. 
Because water can be both an energy producer and an energy con- 
sumer (through utilization), research on energy-water relationships 
is of considerable national importance. OWRT, through its institutes, 
lias the expert ise to conduct much useful research in this area, but the 
need to coordinate this with ERDA is apparent. There is currently 
no formal mechanism for this coordination. COWRR is expected to 
act in a coordinating capacity Cor all Federal water research pro- 
grams and might lill this role, but it is an indirect linkage between 
ERDA and OWRT and may not be the most efficient. 

1). OPTIONS Coll CHANGE 

OWRT represents a partial implementation of the NWC recom- 
mendation to establish an Office of Water Technology. Its predecessor, 
OWRR, developed a successful cooperat ive State- Federal program for 
research, t raining, and information dissemination. The future of the 

new organization depends upon the stature accorded it by the Con- 

- and i lie President, funding Levels provided, and it - position in the 
hierarchv of water resources inst it ut ions. 



Congressional Research Ren ISnergj Organisation by 

Susan R. Abbaal. TP 360, Washington, D.C., March 1075, pp. » S. 



125 

1. Position of the Water Resources Hierarchy 

OWRR was located in the Office of the Secretary of U SDI at the 
time it was initiated. On October 28, 1968. it was made responsible 
to the Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Kesearch. On 
November 23, 1970, it was placed under the jurisdiction of the Assist- 
ant Secretary for Water and Power Development, now the Assistant 
Secretary for Water and Land Resources. This change diminished 
the stature of the organization and narrowed its focus on problems 
outside of USDI. 9 In view of the fact that OWRT is ideally suited 
to perform across a broad spectrum of national water research needs 
and does not have a built-in agency bias, its location at an administra- 
tive level sufficient to command the attention and respect of the entire 
Federal water resources community deserves consideration. Several 
options for accomplishing this are : 

(a) Restore OWRT to its former status in USDI, strengthen 
its mission, and provide appropriate funding. 

(b) Assign OWRT as the research arm of WRC. This would 
tend to enhance the coordination of research within the national 
planning effort, and would strengthen collaboration with State 
and regional planning programs. It would place OWRT in formal 
contact with all relevant agencies dealing with water and related 
land resources. The option should be considered only if WRC 
itself is given greater authority. 

(c) Relocate OWRT in a Department of Energy and Natural 
Resources, if such an entity is formed. 

OWRT should display independence and flexibility in its conduct 
of research and in identification and prioritization of water resources 
problems. It should serve as a national focus for research in the water 
resources field, and should play a fundamental role in the training of 
water scientists. In concert with the university community, it should 
work to guide the direction of water resources research and education 
in the best interests of the Nation. 

2. OWRT Role in Development 

Although large development and demonstration programs involv- 
ing extensive hardware should probably be assigned to various action 
agencies, industry or others, a modest technologv development pro- 
gram is necessary if OWRT is to adequately meet its objectives rela- 
tive to saline water technology, water quality improvement, conserva- 
tion practices, energy development, and other areas. This function 
should be strengthened, clarified, and appropriately funded. 

3. The Future of Saline Water R. cO D. 

The program of desalination research and technology development 
needs to he reassessed and possibly reorganized. A strong research 
program in desalting seems advisable as opportunities remain for in- 
cremental improvements and breakthroughs in conventional salt water 
conversion and in the treatment of brackish and waste water. The 
program should concentrate on water and material properties and 
laboratory scale processes, rather than undertaking large-scale pilot 
facilities. 



•Gladwell, John S. Discussion statement relativo to S. 1301, presented at mooting of 
Research Administration Committee of OCOIII, Auburn, Ala., July 107."., pp. ;; 9. 



126 

OSTT had authority to carry out a program on treatment of min- 
erally charged waters, which could have significant implications for 
the advanced waste treatment program of EPA. OWRT retains legis- 
lative authority to implement this activity, and an increase in research 
in this field should be considered. A major redirection of programs, 
with support from the Department of the Interior, the Office of Man- 
agement and Budget, and appropriate committees of Congress, will 
be required. Options for change include : 

(a) Restoring the desalination program to carry on as it was 
before major funding reductions: 

(b) Creating a new or modified desalination program within 
OWRT; 

(c) Developing an effective agreement between OWRT and 
EPA: 

(d) Transferring the desalination program to another agency, 
bureau or office within the Interior Department : 

(e) Combining the desalination program with EPA's waste 
water and waste water treatment R. & t). program (this could be 
done within EPA. within the Interior Department, or in a sep- 
arate agency) : and 

(/) Conducting the saline water research program within 
OWRT. but transferring the large-scale development aspects 
(pilot plant operations, etc.) to another agency, such as the Bureau 
of Reclamation. 
The 1074 OWRT Advisory Panel considered the option of discon- 
tinuing the saline water research program and strongly recommended 
against it. 10 The Panel also recommended that the Director of OWRT 
undertake a study of all viable alternatives to determine the most 
effective way of assuring that results of the former OSW program 
would be carried forward. 

If. Relationship of OWRT to State Institutes 

The relationship of the OWRT director and his staff to the institute 
directors should be strengthened and the partnership philosophy rein- 
forced. More guidance and assistance from OWRT on program plan- 
ning, development and management seems advisable. At the same 
time, the institute directors should be given the opportunity to con- 
tribute more positively to the development of the national program. 

5. Nev) Directions for Research 

The mechanisms for identifying water resources problems, design- 
ing research to solve these, and setting priorities are generally satis- 
factory, [ncreased attention should be given to "futures research," 
that is. developing methodologies for displaying alternatives from 
which decisionmakers can guide developmental and operational 
effort -. 

6. Coordination 

Problems of c oordi nation are closely allied with other issues, such 

ithority of OWRT, funding level, el cetera. Unless changes occur 

in these areas, there is little likelihood of improvement. Changes 

which will enhance coordinating capabilities at all Levels <>f contact 

should he implemented to the maximum extent practical. 

Department of the interior, ornvr of Water Reaearcli and Tecimniopv Report 
retary of tin- [nterior of the Water Resources Research Advisory Panel Wash- 

IngtOtt, D.C., Mar. 17, l'J7C>, p. 4. 



APPENDIXES 



Appendix A 



Public Law 88-379, as Amended by Public Law 89-404 
and Public Law 92-175 



66-609—76 10 



WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT OF 1964 
(Public Law 88-379 as amended by P.L. 89404 and P.L. 92-175) 



an an 



78 STAT. 329 



To establish water resources research centers, to promote a more adequate 
national program of water research, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That (a) this Act may 
be cited as the "Water Resources Research Act of 1964." 

(b) In order to assist in assuring the Nation at all times of a supply 
of water sufficient in quantity and quality to meet the requirements of 
its expanding population, it is the purpose of the Congress, by this Act, 
to stimulate, sponsor, provide for, and supplement present programs for 
the conduct of research, investigations, experiments, and the training of 
scientists in the fields of water and of resources which affect water. 



Water Re- 
sources Re- 
search Ace 
of 1964. 



TITLE I-STATE WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH 
INSTITUTES 



SEC. 100. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary of the Interior for the fiscal year 1965 and each subsequent 
year thereafter sums adequate to provide $75,000 to each of the several 
States in the first year, $87,500 in each of the second and third years, 
and $250,000 each year thereafter to assist each participating State in 
establishing and carrying on the work of a competent and qualified 
water resources research institute, center, or equivalent agency (herein- 
after referred to as "institute") at one college or university in that 
State, which college or university shall be a college or university 
established in accordance with the Act approved July 2, 1862 (12 Stat. 
503), entitled "An Act donating public lands to the several States and 
territories which may provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and 
the mechanic arts" or some other institution designated by Act of the 
legislature of the State concerned: Provided, That (1) if there is more 
than one such college or university in a State, established in accordance 
with said Act of July 2, 1862, funds under this Act shall, in the absence 
of a designation to the contrary by act of the legislature of the State, be 
paid to the one such college or university designated by the Governor 
of the State to receive the same subject to the Secretary's determina- 
tion that such college or university has, or may reasonably be expected 
to have, the capability of doing effective work under this Act: (2) two 
or more Stales may cooperate in the designation of a single interstate or 
regional institute, in which event the sums assignable to all of the 
cooperating Stales shall be paid to such institute; and (3) a designated 
college or university may, as authorized by appropriate State authority, 
arrange with other colleges and universities within the State to 
participate in the work of the institute: Provided further, That for fiscal 
year 1973 not more than $125,000 shall be appropriated for each of 
the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, and Guam, and for fiscal 
year 1974 not more than $200,000 shall be appropriated for each of 
.such areas. 

(b) It shall be the duty of each such institute to plan and conduct 
and/or arrange for a component or components of the college or 
university with which il is affiliated to conduct competent research, 

(129) 



Appropriation. 



7 USC 301- 
308. 



State 

institute 
duties. 



130 

78 STAT. 330 



investigations, and experiments of either a basic or practical nature, or 
both, in relation to water resources and to provide for the training of 
scientists through such research, investigations, and experiments. Such 
research, investigations, experiments, and training mav include, without 
being limited to, aspects of the hydrologie cycle: supply and demand 
for water; conservation and best use of available supplies of water; 
methods of increasing such supplies; and economic, legal, social, 
engineering, recreational, biological, geographic, ecological, and other 
aspects of water problems, and scientific information dissemination 
activities, including identifying, assembling, and interpreting the results 
of scientific and engineering research deemed potentially significant for 
solution of water resource problems, providing means for improved 
communication regarding such research results, including prototype 
operations, ascertaining the existing and potential effectiveness of such 
for aiding it i the solution of practical problems, and for training 
qualified persons in the performance of such scientific information 
dissemination; having due regard to the varying conditions and needs of 
the respective States, to water research projects being conducted by 
agencies of the Federal and State Governments, the agricultural 
experiment stations, and others, and to avoidance of any undue 
displacement of scientists and engineers elsewhere engaged in water 
resources research. The annual programs submitted by the State 
institutes to the Secretary for approval shall include assurance 
satisfactory to the Secretary that such programs were developed in 
close consultation and collaboration with leading water resources 
officials within the State to promote research, training, and other work 
meeting the needs of the State. 
Matching funds. SFX. 101. (a) There is further authorized to be appropriated to the 

Secretary of the Interior for the fiscal year 1965 and each subsequent 
year thereafter sums not in excess of the following: 1965, $1,000,000; 
1966, $2,000,000; 1967, $3,000,000; 1968, $4,000,000; and 1969 and 
each of the succeeding years, S5, 000,000. Such moneys when appropri- 
ated, shall be available to match, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, funds 
made available to institutes by States or other non-Federal .sources to 
meet the necessary expenses of specific water resources research 
projects which could not otherwise be undertaken, including the 
expenses of planning and coordinating regional \%ater resources research 
projects by two or more institutes. 
Applications (b) Each application for a grant pursuant to subsection (a) of this 

for grants. section shall, among other thing.-, state the nature of the project to be 

undertaken, the period during which it will be pursued, the qualifica- 
tions of the personnel who will direct and conduct it, the importance ol 
the project to the water c< onom\ of the Nation, the region, and the 
Mate concerned, it- relation to other known research project.- thereto- 
fore pursued or currently being pursued, and the extent to which it will 
provide opportunity for the training of water resources scientists. No 

grant .-hall be made under said subsection (a) except lor a project 

approved by the Secretary, ami all grants .-ball be made upon the basis 
of the merit of the project, the need for (he knowledge which it i- 
expected to produce when completed, and the- opportunity it provide-* 
for the training of water resources scientist 

Payments. 51 I 102. § mi- available to the States under the terms of sections 

100 and 101 of tin- Act shall be paid to their designated institutes at 

.-in h time- and m -u< h amount- during cm h fiscal vear as determined 
by tin- Secretary, and upon vouchers approved l»> him. Funds received 



131 



78 STAT. 331 



by an institute pursuant to such payment may be used for any 
allo.wable costs within the meaning of the Federal procurement 
regulations that establish principles for determining costs applicable to 
research and development under grants and contracts with educational 
institutions (41 CFR 1 — 15.3), including future amendments thereto: 
Provided, That the direct costs of tiie programs of each State institute, 
as distinguished from indirect costs, are not less than the amount of the 
Federal funds made available to such State institute pursuant to section 
100 of this Act. Each institute shall have an officer appointed by its 
governing authority who shall receive and account for all funds paid 
under the provisions of this Act and shall make an annual report to the 
Secretary on or before the 1st day of September of each year, on work 
accomplished and the status of projects underway, together with a 
detailed statement of the amounts received under any of the provisions 
of this Act during the preceding fiscal year, and of its disbursement, on 
schedules prescribed by the Secretary. If any of the moneys received by 
the authorized receiving officer of any institute under the provisions of 
this Act shall by any action or contingency be found by the Secretary 
to have been improperly diminished, lost, or misapplied, it shall be 
replaced by the State concerned and until so replaced no subsequent 
appropriation shall be allotted or paid to any institute of such State. 

SEC. 103. Moneys appropriated pursuant to this Act, in addition to 
being available for expenses for research, investigations, experiments, 
and training conducted under authority of this Act, shall also be 
available for printing and publishing the results thereof and for 
administrative planning and direction. The institutes are hereby 
authorized and encouraged to plan and conduct programs financed 
under this Act in cooperation with each other and with such other 
agencies and individuals as may contribute to the solution of the water 
problems involved, and moneys appropriated pursuant to this Act shall 
be available for paying the necessary expenses of planning, coordi- 
nating, and conducting such cooperative research. 

SEC. 104. The Secretary of the Interior is hereby charged with the 
responsibility for the proper administration of this Act and, after full 
consultation with other interested Federal agencies, shall prescribe such 
rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out its provisions. He 
shall require a showing that institutes designated to receive funds have, 
or may reasonably be expected to have, the capability of doing 
effective work. He shall furnish such advice and assistance as will best 
promote the purposes of this Act, participate in coordinating research 
initiated under this Act by the institutes, indicate to them such lines of 
inquiry as to him seem most important, and encourage and assist in the 
establishment and maintenance of cooperation by and between the 
institutes and between them and other research organizations, the 
United States Department of the Interior, and other Federal establish- 
ments. 

.On or before the 1st day of July in each year after the passage of 
this Act, the Secretary shall ascertain whether the requirements of 
section 102 have been met as to each State, whether it is entitled to 
receive its share of the annual appropriations for water resources 
research under section 100 of this Act, and the amount which it is 
entitled to receive. 

SEC. 105. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impair or 
modify the legal relation existing between any of the colleges or 
universities under whose direction an institute is established and the 



Funds for 
printing, etc. 



Secretary of" 
the Interior, 
responsibility. 



132 



78 STAT. 332 



government of the State in which it is located, and nothing in this Act 
shall in any way be construed to authorize Federal control or direction 
of education at any college or university. 

TITLE II-ADDITIONAL WATER RESOURCES 
RESEARCH PROGRAMS 



Appropriations. 



80 STAT. 129 



80 STAT. 1 30 



Transmittal to 
Congress. 



"SEC. 200. (a) There are authorized to be appropriated to the 
Secretary of the Interior $5,000,000 for the fiscal year 1967, 
$6,000,000 for the fiscal year 1968. $7,000,000 for the fiscal year 
1969, $8,000,000 lor the fiscal year 1970, $9,000,000 for the fiscal 
year 1971. and $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1972-1976, 
incl usive, from which appropriations the Secretary may make grants to 
and finance contracts and matching or other arrangements with 
educational institutions, private foundations or other institutions, with 
private firms and individuals whose training, experience, and qualifica- 
tions are, in his judgment, adequate for the conduct of water research 
projects, and with !o<u!, Slate, and Federal Government agencies, to 
undertake research into any aspects of water problems related to the 
mission of the Department of the Interior which he may deem desirable 
and which are not otherwise being studied. 

(b) No grant shall he made, no contract A\n\\ be executed, and no 
matching or other arrangement shall be entered into under subsection 
(a) of t!ii> section prior to sixty calendar days from the date the same is 
submitted to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and said sixty calendar days shall not include days 
on which either the Senate or the House of Representatives is not in 
session because ol an adjournment of more than three calendar days to 
a day certain or an adjournment sine die. 

(c) In addition to other requirements of this Act, the Secretary % 
annual report to lli" President and Congress as required by section 307 
of this Act shall specifically identity each contract and grant award 
approved under subsection (a) of this section in the preceding fiscal 
year, including the title of each research project, name of performing 
organization, and the amount of each giant or < ontract. 



TETLE IU-IY1ISCELLANEOLS PROVISIONS 



Cooperation of 

Government 

agencies. 



Availability of 
information. 



SEG. 300. The Seen tar) of the Interior .shall obtain the continuing 
advice and cooperation of all agencies of the federal Government 
concerned with water problem.-, of State and local governments, and of 
private institutions and individual, to assure tiiat tin- programs 
authorized in this Act will supplement and not duplicate established 
water research programs, to stimulate research in otherwise neglected 

areas, and to contribute to a comprehensive, nationwide program ol 
water and related n • hi < research. Me shall make generally available 
information and reports on projects completed, in progress, Or planned 
under the provisions of this Act, in addition to any direct publication 

ol information l>> the institutes themselves. 

SEC. 301. Nothing in this Act ii intended to give or shall be 
construed as giving the Secret ar) of the Interior an) authority or 
surveillance over water resources research eonducted by any other 
agenc) of the Federal Government, or as repealing, superseding, or 
diminishing existing authorities or responsibilities of any agency ol the 



133 



78 STAT. 333 



Federal Government to plan and conduct, contract for, or assist in 
research in its areas of responsibility and concern with water resources. 

SEC. 302. Contracts or other arrangements for water resources work 
authorized under this Act with an institute, educational institution, or 
non-profit organization may be undertaken without regard to the 
provisions of section 3684 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 529) 
when, in the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, advance 
payments of initial expense are necessary to facilitate such work. 

SEC. 303. No part of any appropriated funds may be expended 
pursuant to authorization given by this Act for any scientific or 
technological research or development activity unless such expenditure 
is conditioned upon provisions determined by the Secretary of the 
Interior, with the approval of the Attorney General, to be effective to 
insure that all information, uses, products, processes, patents, and other 
developments resulting from that activity will (with such exceptions 
and limitations as the Secretary may determine, after consultation with 
the Secretary of Defense, to be necessary in the interest of the national 
defense) be made freely and fully available to the general public. 
Nothing contained in tin's section shall deprive the owner of any 
background patent relating to any such activity of any rights which that 
owner may have under that patent. 

SEC. 304. There shall be established, in such agency and location as 
the President determines to be desirable, a center for cataloging current 
and projected scientific research in all fields of water resources. Each 
Federal agency doing water resources research shall cooperate by 
providing the cataloging center with information on work underway or 
scheduled by it. The cataloging center shall classify and maintain for 
general use a catalog of water resources research and investigation 
projects in progress or scheduled by all Federal agencies and by such 
non-Federal agencies of government, colleges, universities, private 
institutions, firms, and individuals as voluntarily may make such 
information available. 

SEC. 305. Tin; President shall, by such means as he deems 
appropriate, clarify agency responsibilities for Federal water resources 
research and provide for interagency coordination of such research, 
including the research authorized by this Act. Such coordination shall 
include (a) continuing review of the adequacy of the Government-wide 
program in water resources research, (b) identification and elimination 
of duplication and overlaps between two or more agency programs, 
(c) identification of technical needs in various water re-ources research 
categories, (d) recommendations with respect to allocation of technical 
effort among the Federal agencies, (e) review of technical manpower 
needs and findings concerning the technical manpower base of the 
program, (f) recommendations concerning management policies to 
improve the quality of the Government-wide research effort, and 
(g) actions to facilitate interagency communication at management 
levels. 

SEC. 306. As used in this Act, the term "State" includes the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and the 
territories of the Virgin Islands and Guam. 

SEC. 307. The Secretary shall make a report to the President and 
Congress on or before October I of each year showing the disposition 
during the preceding fiscal year of moneys appropriated to carry out 
this Act, the results expected to be accomplished through projects 
financed during that year under sections 101 and 200 of this Act, and 



Cataloging 
center. 



Agency respon- 
sibilities. 
Presidential 
action. 



"State." 



Report to Pres- 
ident and 
Congress. 



134 

78 STAT. 334 



the conclusions reached in or other results achieved bv those projects 

which were completed during that year. I he report shall also include an 
account of the work of all institute: financed under section LOO of this 
Act and indicate whether any portion of an allotment to anv State was 
withheld and, if ><>. I sons therefor. 

63 Stat. 377. - . 308. Excess personal property acquired by the Secretary under 

40 USC 471 t | lc Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, as 

amended, for use i;< furtherance of the purposes of this Act may he 
conveyed by the Secretary to a cooperating institute, educational 
institution, or nonprofit organization, with or without consideration, 
under such terms and conditions a- the Secretary may prescribe. 



note. 



P.L. 88-379 approved July 17, 1964. 
P.L. 89-404 approved April 19, 1%6. 
P.L. 92-175 approved December 2, 1971. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY : - P.L. 88-379, S. 2 

HOUSE REPORTS; No. 1136 (Comm, on Interior & Insular Affairs) and 

No. 1526 (Comm. of Conference). 
SENATE REPORT No. 117 (Comm. on Interior and Insular Affairs). 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. 109 (1963): Apr. 22, considered in Senate. 

Apr. 23, considered and parsed Senate. 
Vol. 110 (1964): June 2, considered and passed House, amended. 
July 2, House and Senate agreed to conference 
report. 



LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: - P.L. 89-404, S. 22 



HOUSE REPORT No. 1350 accompanying H.R. 3606 (Comm. on Interior & 

Insular Affairs). 
SENATE REPORT No. 127 (Comm. on Interior & Insular Affairs). 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: 

Vol. Ill (1965): Mar. 25, considered and passed Senate. 
Vol. 112(1966): Mar. 30, considered and passed House, amended, 
in lieu of H.R. 3606. 
Apr. 5, Senate concurred in House amendment. 



LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: - P.L. 92-175, H.R. 10203 

HOUCE REPORT No. 92-463 (Interior and Insular Affairs). 
SENATE REPORT No. 92-438 (Interior and Insular Affairs). 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 117 (1971): 

Oct. 4, considered and passed House. 

Nov. 22, considered and passed Senate. 



Appendix B 

Text of S. 1301, the Water Kesources Kesearch and Technology 
Development Act of 1975 



94ra CONGRESS Ol 1 *> /\ *S 

IstSessxon 2^ loOl 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

March 21 (legislative day, March 12), 1975 

Mr. Church (for Mr. Jackson) (for himself and Mr. Fannin) (by request) 
introduced the following bill; -which was read twice and referred to the 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs 



A BILL 

To promote a more comprehensive national program of water 
resources research and technology development to reor- 
ganize certain functions in the Department of the Interior, 
and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SHORT TITLE 

4 Section 1. This Act may he cited as the "Water Re- 

5 sources Research and Technology Development Act of 

6 1975". 

II 

(137 



138 



1 AMENDMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH ACT OF 

2 1964 

3 Sec. 2. The Water ^Resources Research Act of 1964, 

4 as amended, is further amended to read as follows: 

5 (a) In title I delete the word "September" in section 

6 102 and insert "December" and in the first sentence of the 

7 second paragraph of section 104, delete the word "July" 

8 and insert "October.". 

9 (b) Substitute the following title II: 

10 "TITLE II— WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH 

11 AXD TECHNOLOGY 

12 "development programs 

13 "Sec. 200. (a) The Secretary of the Interior is au- 

14 thorized to make grants and finance contracts and match- 

15 ing or other arrangements with qualified educational 

16 institutions, private foundations, or other institutions, with 

17 private firms, with local, State, and Federal agencies and 

18 individuals to undertake research into water resources prob- 

19 lems of national interest which he may deem to be desirable 

20 find are not otherwise being studied. 

21 "(b) The Secretary is further authorized to conduct a 

22 water resources technology development program which pur- 

23 sue- research results through the development of effective 
2& Btructural or nonstructural techniques, methods, procedures, 
25 and equipment, and through testing, evaluation, and demon- 



139 
3 

1 stration, to* a point where such results can he adopted for 

2 practical application to problems of national interest. 

3 "(c) Water resources research and technology devekxp- 

4 jnent programs carried out in accordance with this title may 

5 include, without being limited to: saline water conversion; 
G irrigation and other water use efficiencies; water and related 

7 land use planning, operations, management, and legal sys- 

8 terns; protection and enhancement of the water-based en- 

9 vironmental institutional arrangements; saline water con- 

10 version technologies for water reclamation and use; salinity 

11 nianagement; and economic, social, and environmental im- 

12 pact assessment. Due consideration shall be given to priority 

13 problems identified by water and related land resources plan- 

14 ning, data acquisition, and like studies conducted by other 

15 agencies and organizations. The Secretary shall cooperate 

16 fully with the Administrator of the Environmental Protec- 

17 tion Agency to insure that water resources research and 

18 development work performed under the Act makes the fullest 

19 possible contribution to the improvement of water resources 

20 processes and techniques and to avoid in the performance of 

21 this Act the duplication of the experience, expertise, and 

22 data regarding water resource technologies which have been 

23 acquired. 

24 "Sec. 201. To carry out the water resources research 



140 
4 

1 and technology development programs authorized hy this 

2 title, the Secretary may : 

3 " (a) Foster and participate in conferences relating to 

4 water resources research and technology development, and 

5 other water-related topics, and provide information, advice, 

6 and assistance to local, State, Federal, and other agencies and 

7 organizations in the solution of water and water-related 

8 problems. 

9 "(b) Engage, by competitive contract or otherwise, 

10 chemists, physicists, engineers, and such other personnel as 

11 may be deemed necessary, and any educational institution, 

12 scientific organization or individual, Government agency, or 

13 private firm deemed suitable to do any part of the research, 

14 technology development, or other work authorized by this 

15 Act, and, correlate and coordinate the research and tech- 

16 nology development work of such educational institutions, 

17 scientific organizations, and private firms. 

18 "(r) Develop and implement technology transfer 
29 methodologies as required to assure tliat the results of rc- 
20 searcli and development undertaken pursuant to this Act can 
2i be adopted for practical application by others, including hut 

22 not limited to the reduction of scientific and technical reports 

23 into suitable and understandable formats, and conduct assess- 

24 ments of tin; impacts of other technology on water resources. 

25 " (<1) Maintain an awareness through on-site inspection 



141 
5 

1 of promising projects and facilities, and cooperate and par- 

2 ticip&te, when the purposes of* this Act will be served thereby. 

3 "(e) Accept financial and other assistance from any 

4 local, State, Federal,, and other agency in connection with 

5 studies or surveys relating to water problems and facilities, 

6 and enter into contracts, with regard to such assistance. 

7 "(f) Establish and operate facilities as necessary to 

8 carry on the research and technology development programs 

9 to effectuate the purpose of this Act. 

10 " (g) Acquire processes, technical data, inventions, 

11 patent applications, patents, licenses, land, and interest in 

12 land (including water rights), research and technology 

13 development equipment and facilities, and other property or 

14 rights by purchase, license, lease, or donation. 

15 "Sec. 202. There are authorized to be appropriated such 

16 sums, to remain available until expended, as may be specified 

17 in annual appropriation Acts to carry out the provisions of 

18 this title.". 

19 (c) Amend title III as follows: 

20 (i) In section 300 delete the last sentence and insert: 

21 "To accomplish this the Secretary shall, in addition to such 

22 other actions as may be required, make generally available 

23 abstracts and other summary type information concerning 

24 water related research accomplishments by all Federal agen- 

25 cies and by non-Federal agencies, private institutions, nnd 



UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 

. i!!?!I!J!pi 

6 

1 individuals, to the extent such information can be obtained, 

2 and completed reports on researoh projects funded under 

3 provisions of this Act, including any direct publication of 

4 research information undertaken by the Institutes.". 

(ii) In section 3.01, following the word "research" 

6 wherever it appears, insert the words "and technology 

7 development". 

8 (iii) Delete section 303 and insert in lieu: 

9 "Sec. 3. The Saline Water Conversion Act of 1971 
10 (Public Law 92-60) is hereby repealed." 

O